The myth of the “good list”

[Eshay187]

“Essendon* have a good list, but are under performing”

*right now it’s about Essendon but it’s a regularly used expression, usually used to bash a coach.

As is the opposite, “over perform with an average list”.

What does this even mean?

“Good” according to who?

What it means is, the media has put more focus on that team’s players, and their teams have been more successful in marketing them, therefore people assume they must be good.

You’ll notice it’s always teams like Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood with “good lists” that are underperforming, and teams like Fremantle, Port Adelaide, and Brisbane who “over perform” with an average list.

Brothers and sisters, comrades, be wise to this nonsense.

Am I wrong? Is there an obvious example of a “good list” who was poorly coached, and quickly revealed themselves to fulfil their elite potential? Or does sustained success come via a sustained journey?

Peace be upon you.

 

[Dazb86]

We had a 'better list' over 2008-2010 than the side that won the grand final in 2016.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Am I wrong? Is there an obvious example of a “good list” who was poorly coached, and quickly revealed themselves to fulfil their elite potential? Or does sustained success come via a sustained journey?

Bevo had success at the dogs pretty quickly. Not sure they were thought of as having a good list before that though

 

[faible]

“Essendon* have a good list, but are under performing”

*right now it’s about Essendon but it’s a regularly used expression, usually used to bash a coach.

As is the opposite, “over perform with an average list”.

What does this even mean?

“Good” according to who?

What it means is, the media has put more focus on that team’s players, and their teams have been more successful in marketing them, therefore people assume they must be good.

You’ll notice it’s always teams like Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood with “good lists” that are underperforming, and teams like Fremantle, Port Adelaide, and Brisbane who “over perform” with an average list.

Brothers and sisters, comrades, be wise to this nonsense.

Am I wrong? Is there an obvious example of a “good list” who was poorly coached, and quickly revealed themselves to fulfil their elite potential? Or does sustained success come via a sustained journey?

Peace be upon you.

Carlton improved fairly dramatically under Voss from one season to the next, suggesting their list was underperforming their potential under Teague. Their top-end talent is as good as anyone's, ergo, good list but underperforming.

 

[Breretonisahood]

“Essendon* have a good list, but are under performing”

*right now it’s about Essendon but it’s a regularly used expression, usually used to bash a coach.

As is the opposite, “over perform with an average list”.

What does this even mean?

“Good” according to who?

What it means is, the media has put more focus on that team’s players, and their teams have been more successful in marketing them, therefore people assume they must be good.

You’ll notice it’s always teams like Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood with “good lists” that are underperforming, and teams like Fremantle, Port Adelaide, and Brisbane who “over perform” with an average list.

Brothers and sisters, comrades, be wise to this nonsense.

Am I wrong? Is there an obvious example of a “good list” who was poorly coached, and quickly revealed themselves to fulfil their elite potential? Or does sustained success come via a sustained journey?

Peace be upon you.

But BF wouldn’t exist without the “myth of the list”. I reckon at least 80% of the content in BF is a bunch of nuffies arguing who has the best list, or more specific issues like who has the oldest list, or the list wif the best yoof or the list with the worst bottom 6 etc….Hell, BF was full of comments before the 2022 season started that Geelongs list was too old and they’d plummet down the ladder. So much for judging a team by its list!

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Do people really think Essendon have a good list? I'd argue they're about where they should be on the ladder. Collingwood this year seem to be the opposite, there are some obvious holes in the list that you wouldn't think exist in a top 4 team, but conversely last year they had a much better list than 17th

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think 'good and bad' is a misnomer at the top level.

By that I mean the competition is so close, as in personnel, yes even north - that it's 1 or 2 % off and you lose by 84 points (talking bomb outs).

Most 'spuds' usually dominate at the 2nd tier - that's not chump change.

We've discovered 'diamonds in the rough' in those state leagues and even lower tiers.

99% of the fan bases eye is only on the top level, so what looks like bad or good is rarely if ever as good as or bad as it seems.

For example, take my mob. You wouldn't think they're top 4 quality - yet they're playing like they are.

The old 'system beats talent' usually rings true.

GWS 2016 to 2019 you could argue had the 'best list' yet didn't win it, meanwhile the dynasty team around them, not many would argue they had the 'best' list.

Fine margins personnel wise for mine, it's making the best use of the elite talent you have that determines when 'spuds' become back page news.

 

[Number37]

“Essendon* have a good list, but are under performing”

*right now it’s about Essendon but it’s a regularly used expression, usually used to bash a coach.

As is the opposite, “over perform with an average list”.

What does this even mean?

“Good” according to who?

What it means is, the media has put more focus on that team’s players, and their teams have been more successful in marketing them, therefore people assume they must be good.

You’ll notice it’s always teams like Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood with “good lists” that are underperforming, and teams like Fremantle, Port Adelaide, and Brisbane who “over perform” with an average list.

Brothers and sisters, comrades, be wise to this nonsense.

Am I wrong? Is there an obvious example of a “good list” who was poorly coached, and quickly revealed themselves to fulfil their elite potential? Or does sustained success come via a sustained journey?

Peace be upon you.

Making shit up is what the AFL is all about. From the CEO down.
Why should the fans be any different to the AFL administration and the AFL media?

 

[Plugger46]

Disagree with me or not but i always thought for the time the crows had an average list in 97 and 98

 

[Igavemyloveachicken]

Enter Port Adelaide and Ken Hinkley, 2015 to 2017 for the underachiever's award.

 

[Igavemyloveachicken]

Disagree with me or not but i always thought for the time the crows had an average list in 97 and 98

Better than average but clearly not the best list in those years. On reflection you had some genuine match winners Andrew McLeod, Darren Jarmen, Mark Riccuito, Ben Hart, Simon Goodwin, Shaun Rehn, Nigel Smart.

The less heralded players were the key to your Premiership team's, Peter Caven, Shane Ellen, Kym Koster all had near career best games from memory.

 

[Fadge]

We had a 'better list' over 2008-2010 than the side that won the grand final in 2016.

Agree with this.

Unfortunately that was the time of the Super Era with Geelong, St. Kilda and Collingwood.

That 2008-10 list would have won a flag in any other era.

 

[Fadge]

Carlton improved fairly dramatically under Voss from one season to the next, suggesting their list was underperforming their potential under Teague. Their top-end talent is as good as anyone's, ergo, good list but underperforming.

I reckon this is also a common misconception - People look at a team's top 5 or 6 players, and use this to assess the quality of their list.

Look at Carlton's 12th to 15th ranked players and beyond - I reckon it's close to the worst in the league.

Hence, whilst their top 5 are as good as any other team, they do not have a 'good list'.

 

[Bianconeri]

Is there an obvious example of a “good list” who was poorly coached, and quickly revealed themselves to fulfil their elite potential?

It think Collingwood under Buckley is a good example of this.

 

[JackFlash]

According to the 718 game, 3-time premiership coach Mick Malthouse, Essendon had a superb list at the beginning of the season, so much so, that he predicted a Bombers flag in 2022!

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Essendon have a bad list. Winning football is built upon competitiveness and hard ball football. Regards of other football traits; Essendon have never had close to enough players with a sacrificial desire to run until the lungs burn or to win hard ball for our entire finals winning drought. Something other teams haven't done and often start their builds from this place.

 

[Dazb86]

Essendon have a bad list. Winning football is built upon competitiveness and hard ball football. Regards of other football traits; Essendon have never had close to enough players with a sacrificial desire to run until the lungs burn or to win hard ball for our entire finals winning drought. Something other teams haven't done and often start their builds from this place.

The current list has given up in multiple games along the journey. It can get too hard for them far too easily. It kind of explains the unpredictable results