The Big 4 If It Were Decided Today

[Falchoon]

Who would be in if this concept was created today?

My view is that Richmond and possibly Carlton would be out and replaced by West Coast and either Hawthorn or Geelong. Clubs with bigger recent success and a strong supporter and finance base.

What are your thoughts?

Discuss!

With the size of the league going from 16 to 18 the 'big 4' has risen equally from 4 to 4 and a half.

If it makes you happy Geelong can be the half

 

[Schache It Off]

GWS and GC should be in the big 4 in a few years time

 

[Hipster Doofus]

Sensible Post

 

[Papa G]

LOLZ

This again! I bet this will turn to a 100 page thread.

The BIG 4 was a concept created in the 60s-70s.

It referred to the dominant Melbournian teams that powerful on field, off field and had the largest derbies against one another. Back then it was Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood & Essendon. Whichever way you want to look at it.

Since then however, the VFL has become the AFL, 8 new clubs were introduced and elements to the game have changed (players don't drink at the pub after a win anymore).

Historically the BIG 4 is just a term to coincide with the strength of these four clubs at the time of its inception. Right now however, the competition has become so competitive, that the BIG 4 would change constantly, one could argue the BIG 4 was Brisbane, Collingwood, Port Adelaide & Essendon only 10 years ago. Now however it would be Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood & West Coast. In 10 years it may be Gold Coast, GWS, Melbourne & Fremantle.

Get with the times, its an old term, its a dead term and it was a term created for Coll, Carl, Rich & Ess.

Good post and surprising from a Richmond supporter who tend to cling to these things. Kudos

 

[Hipster Doofus]

LOLZ

This again! I bet this will turn to a 100 page thread.

The BIG 4 was a concept created in the 60s-70s.

It referred to the dominant Melbournian teams that powerful on field, off field and had the largest derbies against one another. Back then it was Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood & Essendon. Whichever way you want to look at it.

Since then however, the VFL has become the AFL, 8 new clubs were introduced and elements to the game have changed (players don't drink at the pub after a win anymore).

Historically the BIG 4 is just a term to coincide with the strength of these four clubs at the time of its inception. Right now however, the competition has become so competitive, that the BIG 4 would change constantly, one could argue the BIG 4 was Brisbane, Collingwood, Port Adelaide & Essendon only 10 years ago. Now however it would be Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood & West Coast. In 10 years it may be Gold Coast, GWS, Melbourne & Fremantle.

Get with the times, its an old term, its a dead term and it was a term created for Coll, Carl, Rich & Ess.

Sensible Post

 

[Jade]

So what you are saying is that the bandwagoner factor only relates to membership numbers and not those who claim to support a club but who aren't members? .

Ugh..... somedays I'd have the patience to pick your comments apart bit by bit, but I cant really be stuffed today.

So please, provide me the source indicating a dramatic rise in Essendon's 'claimed supporters' directly following it's 2000 flag. I'm sure it will be enlightening, and far more useful than the quantifiable figures I was offering.

 

[gurncentral]

Because A LOT of people's self-worth seems closely related to the success of their club. They need to feel rated, and walk with a swagger. They need to know their club matters. They want a sig that lists all their premierships, even if the majority of them occurred before man walked on the moon. They need to feel their "part in this" involves more than the poster sitting in the crowd and cheering.

I've got no problem with supporting a club - duh, I'm here - but the way some people go about it is weird, like someone flexing their muscles in a mirror. When I see the "Big 4" thing rear its head, I see that.

inb4 Sydney supporter would say that.

Got it in one.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

hey look! It's this thread again!

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

It referred to the dominant Melbournian teams that powerful on field, off field and had the largest derbies against one another. Back then it was Richmond, Carlton, Collingwood & Essendon. Whichever way you want to look at it.

Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon games are still by far the biggest games. All finished in finals this year. Ess-Carl final biggest elim final crowd for yonks. Still powerful off field.

Big 3 is alive and well. Big 4 is dead. Seeya Richmond.

 

[The Goon]

Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon games are still by far the biggest games. All finished in finals this year. Ess-Carl final biggest elim final crowd for yonks. Still powerful off field.

Big 3 is alive and well. Big 4 is dead. Seeya Richmond.

I invoke the magic words: "Back to the bay with you UglyBlueTroll!"

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon games are still by far the biggest games. All finished in finals this year. Ess-Carl final biggest elim final crowd for yonks. Still powerful off field.

Big 3 is alive and well. Big 4 is dead. Seeya Richmond.

bye bye, so sad we've been kicked out of this imaginary term

 

[dumb]

big 4... richmond =

[youtube]8LWtb621DRg[/youtube]

 

[00Stinger]

Collingwood
West Coast
Hawthorn
Geelong

 

[IronMike]

2011 crowd averages:

Collingwood 60,149
Carlton 53,027
Essendon 47,747
Richmond 44,219
West Coast Eagles 37,574
St Kilda 36,518
Hawthorn 36,363
Geelong 35,401
Adelaide 35,020

 

[DTRAIN87]

The crowd figures are misrepresentative as Geelong has more members than spots at Skilled and same goes for WCE and Subi.

 

[le dominateur]

Collingwood Essendon West Coast Adelaide

Geelong Hawthorn new challengers to the old guard Carlton Richmond

The other 10 to be known as "the rest"

Ha, what dribble. Adelaide are not even close to being a powerhouse. Most of their supporters will be living in retirement homes within the next 10 years.

 

[PuntRoadEnd]

Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon games are still by far the biggest games. All finished in finals this year. Ess-Carl final biggest elim final crowd for yonks. Still powerful off field.

Big 3 is alive and well. Big 4 is dead. Seeya Richmond.

Go join Amy flog

 

[HappyChappy35]

Geez I love statements with no basis in fact.

Essendon's membership jumped by approximately 2,000 after it's flag.

And after you jumped from 8th in 1998 to 1st in 99, and subsequently went from 29k members to 34k in 2000. Not what I'm trying to point out anyway, but DTRAIN was merely responding to an idiotic comment.
On topic, you cannot determine who is/isn't a big 4 club without some form of criteria. Criteria I would include is- historical/recent success, finances, relevance, fan/membership base, and attendances. Hawthorn and West Coast could mount a strong case for a spot ahead of Richmond IMO, but that would be about it. Not that I really pay attention to the 'big 4' debate anyhow.

 

[Squida25]

2011 crowd averages:

Collingwood 60,149
Carlton 53,027
Essendon 47,747
Richmond 44,219
West Coast Eagles 37,574
St Kilda 36,518
Hawthorn 36,363
Geelong 35,401
Adelaide 35,020

deal with it

 

[fishguts]

2011 crowd averages:

Collingwood 60,149
Carlton 53,027
Essendon 47,747
Richmond 44,219
West Coast Eagles 37,574
St Kilda 36,518
Hawthorn 36,363
Geelong 35,401
Adelaide 35,020

These figures are off.

Essendon averaged 49691 for the H&A season and Carlton averaged 49553.

 

[HurleyTheFuture]

what is the criteria for the "big 4"? Crowd numbers at games? memberships? games won? premierships? opperating profit?

The bolded points,
I mean no offence to richmond but if it was games won and premierships they wouldnt be included

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

The "big 4" wouldn't be decided today because there aren't exactly four clubs that are significantly bigger than the rest (in terms of success and support).

The reason the number '4' was chosen was because that's how many clubs were ahead of the pack in the early 80's when it was most likely coined. If there were 3 or 5 ahead of the pack it would've been a "big 3" or "big 5".

If you look at the major superpowers of the world you've got the USA and China. You don't need to say "Oh but we need a big 4 so lets chuck Russia and Germany in there too". That's stupid because they don't deserve to be mentioned in that conversation. In that case it's a big two.*

For NBA fans in the case of the Miami Heat they call it a "big 3", simply because there are 3 clear stand outs. They don't say "oh we need a big 4 so lets chuck Udonis Haslem in there too".


In the AFL's case, since the early 80's Hawthorn has succeeded and grown close to/drawn even with maybe Richmond. Plus West Coast and Adelaide have both been added to the league.

So it can be:

A Victorian "big 3" (Coll, Ess, Carl)
A Victorian "big 4" (Coll, Ess, Carl, Rich)
A Victorian "big 4" (Coll, Ess, Carl, Haw)
A Victorian "big 5" (Coll, Ess, Carl, Rich, Haw)
A league "big 4" (Coll, Ess, WC, Adel)
A league "big 4" (Coll, Ess, Carl, WC)
A league "big 5" (Coll, Ess, Carl, WC, Adel)
A league "big 7" (Coll, Ess, Carl, WC, Adel, Rich, Haw)
A league "big 1" (Collingwood)

Most would have Collingwood at 1 with 2-7 a slow gradual decrease in size (success/popularity). Maybe even chuck Geelong in just behind Richmond and Hawthorn.

There's no definitive group of teams that clearly stand ahead of the rest in terms of success and support. Maybe (Carl, Coll, Ess) or (Carl, Coll, Ess, West Coast) but even then it's way to hard too define.

You could probably claim a Victorian "big 3" but not a league one.

atm there's a more clearly defined Victorian "Minnow 4" than "Big 4".



/End Rant


















*I'm not a huge follower of world economics/military so apologies to Russia if you deserve to be there

 

[The Goon]

If I understand it correctly the term 'Big 4' was coined in a 12 team competition. Surely with an 18 team competition it should be the 'Big 6'?

Should be:
Collingwood
West Coast

**** Remaining 4 spots to be filled on a yearly basis, with wildly differing criteria ****

 

[Blues_Man]

Why are people fascinated with this concept?

Because they are jealous and desperately want their team to be relevant, it's always enjoyable watching them squirm with indignation when they are presented with the fact that their clubs just don't cut it with the big boys .

 

[Harvey_35]

I see your point, with regards to the recent success of other clubs, however, from a personal standpoint when I think of the "big 4" I always think of the teams that were originally included when the phrase was termed.

For example, i'll always consider Liverpool a part of the big 4 even though they've stunk it up it in recent times.

Then again though, that logic is flawed as Chelsea is probably considered big 4 and they sucked until the russian pig came along.

Still, if someone asked me who the big 4 was in AFL i'd have no hesitation in saying Pies, Dons, Blues and Tigers.