Rate the best performing clubs of the AFL era (1990-). Looking beyond number of premierships and at overall performance

[Yojimbo]

From 1994 to 2000 North Melbourne played in seven consecutive preliminary finals making them the holders
of the greatest run in preliminary final history since 1990. Hawthorn 2011 to 2015 or five consecutive
preliminary finals gets a mention on the honour roll of greatness as does Geelong 2007 to 2011 another
five consecutive preliminary finals run.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

St Kilda's 09 side would've destroyed any of Hawthorns Grand Finals sides. Poll is for best performing clubs St Killda were also a force throughout the 90s

Ok, so you smoke crack.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[old55]

The spin-off of this thread is which teams have been in serious contention for a period but failed to win a flag.

I'm old enough to remember two of the biggest examples going:

• Collingwood in the 60s under Bobby Rose
• Collingwood in the late 70s - early 80s under Tom Hafey

Working backwards in time from now some examples are:

• St.Kilda particularly around 2009-10 under Ross Lyon
• Crows particularly around 2005-6 under Neil Craig
• Demons 98-2006 under Neale Daniher
• Dogs 96-2002 under Terry Wallace
• Geelong 88-95 under Malcolm Blight

There are probably other examples, the ones there that hit hardest are Melbourne and St.Kilda because they haven't gone on to win a subsequent flag, particularly St.Kilda who were more worthy contenders than that Melbourne team.

I think there's a couple of potential examples brewing now that need to convert their current chance:

• Collingwood under Nathan Buckley
• GWS under Leon Cameron

On the other hand it's hard to find examples of clubs that won flags out of the blue. Maybe Essendon in 1993 but Sheedy coached them to flags before and after so in hindsight it's not a big surprise. I thought Adelaide came out of nowhere in 97 but backed it up in 98 so no surprise there in hindsight. The Hawks in 2008 under Clarkson was a surprise but we all know what happened next. Similarly I think the Dogs in 2016 surprised but I expect them to contend hard under Beveridge over the next 3-5 years and possibly simulate Hawthorn.

 

[cryptor]

While technically that is true whichever way you boil it down and dissect it it's still 1st last. Can't escape that. This whole thread was op'd in what seems a desperate grab at relativity of "well my club has actually outperformed the other club with more flags in that period".

Pffft. And others are using too - as for the Pies sure they're not the worst but just because they're usually contending doesn't justify the reverence.

I'm only suggesting it be considered as a way to separate clubs who are tied on the same number of flags. I'm not suggesting that it's a basis for "reverence", or that you can do something like bundle all the secondary markers of success (ie. GF/PF appearances) and assign those a value that then lets you elevate them above clubs that have actually more often hit the one target all clubs are continually striving for.

Anyway, I've said my piece based on the original thread topic.

 

[HawkMongrel]

lol I just saw this.

Only a Geelong fan could have started a thread like this. The inferiority complex is gargantuan.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The spin-off of this thread is which teams have been in serious contention for a period but failed to win a flag.

I'm old enough to remember two of the biggest examples going:

• Collingwood in the 60s under Bobby Rose
• Collingwood in the late 70s - early 80s under Tom Hafey

Working backwards in time from now some examples are:

• St.Kilda particularly around 2009-10 under Ross Lyon
• Crows particularly around 2005-6 under Neil Craig
• Demons 98-2006 under Neale Daniher
• Dogs 96-2002 under Terry Wallace
• Geelong 88-95 under Malcolm Blight

There are probably other examples, the ones there that hit hardest are Melbourne and St.Kilda because they haven't gone on to win a subsequent flag, particularly St.Kilda who were more worthy contenders than that Melbourne team.

I think there's a couple of potential examples brewing now that need to convert their current chance:

• Collingwood under Nathan Buckley
• GWS under Leon Cameron

On the other hand it's hard to find examples of clubs that won flags out of the blue. Maybe Essendon in 1993 but Sheedy coached them to flags before and after so in hindsight it's not a big surprise. I thought Adelaide came out of nowhere in 97 but backed it up in 98 so no surprise there in hindsight. The Hawks in 2008 under Clarkson was a surprise but we all know what happened next. Similarly I think the Dogs in 2016 surprised but I expect them to contend hard under Beveridge over the next 3-5 years and possibly simulate Hawthorn.

I wouldn't call Hawthorn 2008 a surprise in as much as they were an emerging side and won a final the previous year after building on a very good end to 2006. It was probably a surprise that they won in 2008 because many thought it was a year or two early...but they were certainly evolving into an excellent team by the time 2008 rolled around.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm only suggesting it be considered as a way to separate clubs who are tied on the same number of flags. I'm not suggesting that it's a basis for "reverence", or that you can do something like bundle all the secondary markers of success (ie. GF/PF appearances) and assign those a value that then lets you elevate them above clubs that have actually more often hit the one target all clubs are continually striving for.

Anyway, I've said my piece based on the original thread topic.

Yeah see your point, just pointing out that some will use the thread premise to raise their club to an unwarranted level i:e the op.

 

[threesixpio]

All teams play to get flags true, but there are different measures and goals for teams, based on where they are at. It's not realistic for every club to win the flag every year, and for some seeing improvement to say make finals after a long period without them, or for example in GC's case the first time, is still a successful year.

Fans too, enjoy much more than just premierships. I didn't see one until 2017, but I still loved and enjoyed the ride with every win we had, every finals we made and so forth. Flags aren't won often, but there's a lot more to success than just that.


In terms of overall performance and not just the ultimate success, it would be a better measure to look at all of the following, and obviously weight flags more heavily, for example:

1. Premierships (most points)
2. Grand Finals
3. Finals wins
4. Finals made
5. Home and away games won (least points)

To look at premierships alone is far too dismissive of overall strong performance. There is a difference between success, and overall performance. A club can still perform well for a long period without just being measured on flags.

Using the above points system, I would imagine Hawthorn, Geelong, West Coast, and possibly Sydney, Collingwood and Brisbane would shape the first 6 teams?

A big long post which ends with the same list in pretty much the same order if you just looked at flags.


...ok

 

[juss]

A big long post which ends with the same list in pretty much the same order if you just looked at flags.


...ok

I'm not debating Hawks aren't the top if that's what you're questioning, I'm just debating using flags as the only measure of long term performance and believe when we go down from 1st to 18th, the overall points of those measures give a better overall guide.

 

[Thrawn]

"Looking beyond number of premierships" is where I stopped reading. Premierships are and will always be the yardstick for success. Doesn't matter if you are runners up for 20 years in a row, that team who has one a single premiership during that time but finished mid-table to low every other year will always have that ultimate success. The reasons why teams compete in the first place is to get their hands on the cup.

That's precisely why Carlton have been the better performing team than St Kilda in the last 30 years, for instance, despite being shit during the last two decades.

 

[Freomaniac]

I wouldn't call Hawthorn 2008 a surprise in as much as they were an emerging side and won a final the previous year after building on a very good end to 2006. It was probably a surprise that they won in 2008 because many thought it was a year or two early...but they were certainly evolving into an excellent team by the time 2008 rolled around.

depends on how you see it. To me I was surprised the hawks won that flag in 2008, despite playing some good footy in the 2nd half of the season.

No one will deny the hawks in the 2008 grand final were underdogs.

 

[Freomaniac]

"Looking beyond number of premierships" is where I stopped reading. Premierships are and will always be the yardstick for success. Doesn't matter if you are runners up for 20 years in a row, that team who has one a single premiership during that time but finished mid-table to low every other year will always have that ultimate success. The reasons why teams compete in the first place is to get their hands on the cup.

That's precisely why Carlton have been the better performing team than St Kilda in the last 30 years, for instance, despite being shit during the last two decades.

your harsh but fair as well.

Well I haven't seen my AFL team win a flag.

I haven't seen my SANFL team, South Adelaide win one either. Since their birth in 1876, they haven't won a flag since 1964. They have won flags in 1877, 1885, 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896, 1898, 1899,. 1935, 1938 and 1964. 11 flags all up

 

[threesixpio]

I'm not debating Hawks aren't the top if that's what you're questioning, I'm just debating using flags as the only measure of long term performance and believe when we go down from 1st to 18th, the overall points of those measures give a better overall guide.

I wouldn’t care if you were debating Hawks dominance - I’m suggesting that flags are probably the best measure because you get to the same result anyway - particularly over a long period. It’s the unnecessary complicated (and arguably redundant) qualifications that annoy me more than anything

 

[juss]

I wouldn’t care if you were debating Hawks dominance - I’m suggesting that flags are probably the best measure because you get to the same result anyway - particularly over a long period. It’s the unnecessary complicated (and arguably redundant) qualifications that annoy me more than anything

I guess this measure allows you to rate teams 1 to 18th, if a club hasn't won a flag, we still have ways to rate their performance.

No one's arguing flags aren't the most important individual measure.

 

[threesixpio]

I guess this measure allows you to rate teams 1 to 18th, if a club hasn't won a flag, we still have ways to rate their performance.

No one's arguing flags aren't the most important individual measure.

Arrr. One to eighteenth. Fair enough.

 

[Farang83150]

lol I just saw this.

Only a Geelong fan could have started a thread like this. The inferiority complex is gargantuan.

So true, Scott's probably the OP.

 

[STFU Donnie]

your harsh but fair as well.

Well I haven't seen my AFL team win a flag.

I haven't seen my SANFL team, South Adelaide win one either. Since their birth in 1876, they haven't won a flag since 1964. They have won flags in 1877, 1885, 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896, 1898, 1899,. 1935, 1938 and 1964. 11 flags all up

Sexism!!

The Panthers' W side are the reigning back-to-back Premiers.

 

[Roddy]

"Looking beyond number of premierships" is where I stopped reading. Premierships are and will always be the yardstick for success. Doesn't matter if you are runners up for 20 years in a row, that team who has one a single premiership during that time but finished mid-table to low every other year will always have that ultimate success. The reasons why teams compete in the first place is to get their hands on the cup.

That's precisely why Carlton have been the better performing team than St Kilda in the last 30 years, for instance, despite being shit during the last two decades.

Yeah, this thread is like saying ‘let’s rate all the great olympians of all time but look beyond the medals won’

 

[PCORF]

Richmond could add one more in 2020 or 2021, scarily similar to the cats stint from 2004-2011.

Yes that is very possible.

 

[MVille Swan]

2006 you couldnt of done much more. Barry Hall was the difference maker in both those 2005-6 grand finals in both a good and bad way.

2005: Swans kick 8.10.58. Hall kicks 2 goals. Swans win by 4 points.
2006: Kick 12.12.84. Hall kicks 2 behinds. Swans lose by a point

2012: Hawks were a 5-6 goal better side on paper. Hawks Sprayed their shots, Swans didnt, Swans won.

2014: Yep I wanted the swans to win that, hawks were way too good on the day.

2016: Yes there were a few umpiring calls that went to the dogs. Hannebery got injured. Franklin was sore too. Swans got within a point of the dogs midway through the final quarter then the dogs kicked the next 3 and won by 20. Had the swans won this game, would of been the perfect way to end the era.

2006 & 2016 were the ones that got away from us, and probably 2012 was the one that go away from Hawthorn. But I'd take our record of being 2-and-4
in GFs and only missing four finals series since 1996 over Brisbane's record any day. The GFs are cream on the cake, but the large bulk of a footy season if you're a Sydney based Swans fan is rocking up to the SCG (and ANZ for many years) every second week and seeing a team that has been very competitive
for a long time now.

 

[Freomaniac]

Sexism!!

The Panthers' W side are the reigning back-to-back Premiers.

yeah that too

 

[Carringbush2010]

Arrr. One to eighteenth. Fair enough.

I agree with you 3be - flags are the only real measure, but if we had to (which we don't) rate a teams performance how would you separate, Freo, GC, stk, dees and GWS?

Equal 18th?

 

[Obeanie1]

Geelong on top. Two second places. Hawthorn (the most premierships since 1990) somehow behind Geelong, West Coast, St Kilda and Collingwood.

Jeez.

Count the premierships, count the grand final appearances. That's pretty much all you need.

You need a points ranking system that allocated points for major kpi's

Premiers - 100 points
Grand finals - 50 points
Minor premiers - 30 points
Top four finishes post finals - 20 points
Other finalists finished post finals - 10 points
Membership ranking - 18 points 1st 1 point last
Financial performance - 18 points 1st 1 point last

Tally that up and you get your answer.

 

[Obeanie1]

All teams play to get a flag

Best performing team has to be the one with most flags. Dumb/hilarious to say otherwise

And what happens when two teams have the same numbers of flags?

 

[Cuzz09]

I'm frothing.

Should probably go see a doctor.

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app