The rankings (from best to worst) of the 128 VFL/AFL premiership teams.

[CrowToon]

The comparison is clearly about how good an achievement it was in its given year. Not whether highly trained professionals would beat part timers who had steak and beer before the game. I thought was a given

Even just accounting for relative difficulty in a particular year is absurd.

1911 where a competition is amateur etc with only 10 teams is infinitely less of a challenge than 2024 with 18 teams and a professionalised industry. It can't even be a question. Youd take the 1911 scenario 100/100 times.

If the list was simply a rating out of 10 for how relatively difficult the achievement of winning it was for each year independently I'd respect it. But as soon as you then take those ratings and rank them, you've added in a totally new dimension and criticism should be levelled at it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Post yours.

No.

 

[terrybull]

The Premiership team is what shows up in finals and specifically the Grand Final. How many chump teams they beat 20 weeks earlier has no real bearing on how good the actual Premiership team is. On Grand Final day 2019 Richmond proved objectively 456% better than the next best opponent the AFL could throw at them. Has any team ever proven as dominant in winning a Premiership? Probably not. Yet I refer to your list, and you have them the 86th best premier.

I then think, shit, the number one team must have been unbelievably dominant in the Grand Final, so I check....and to my utter astonishment they were only 180% as good compared to the next best team the AFL could throw at them.

180/456 = 39%

So on your list, the number 1 Premier in the history of the competition, was only 40% as dominant on Grand Final day compared to the 86th ranked Premier.

The Premier is decided on Grand Final day, and NEVER in the home and away season. Ergo, your system of grading Premiers is rubbish.

Maybe you could just respect the gigantus work he has done by not saying anything at all.

Or just in a polite way say what you disagree with.

Pretty sure no-one agrees with rankings here 100%, probably not even Dan26 as it’s an impossible task and opinions change from time to time.

But it’s these kind of posts that are very entertaining to read and should be praised while disagreeing.

When I was younger 100 years ago, I do these kind of stats myself, but luckily there was no internet or BigFooty forums for my work to be dissected, ridiculed by negative people who’s life mission is to spit at others opinions that are not close of their own.

Keep up the good work Dan26 although I don’t agree with most of the list, I still look forward reading where the Tigers 26 Premiership fits

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Maybe you could just respect the gigantus work he has done by not saying anything at all.

Or just in a polite way say what you disagree with.

Pretty sure no-one agrees with rankings here 100%, probably not even Dan26 as it’s an impossible task and opinions change from time to time.

But it’s these kind of posts that are very entertaining to read and should be praised while disagreeing.

When I was younger 100 years ago, I do these kind of stats myself, but luckily there was no internet or BigFooty forums for my work to be dissected, ridiculed by negative people who’s life mission is to spit at others opinions that are not close of their own.

Keep up the good work Dan26 although I don’t agree with most of the list, I still look forward reading where the Tigers 26 Premiership fits

Have done exactly that before in these threads. And guess what sort of response that was met with from the person you are now saying I should respect?

In my world terrybull, you call the tune, and I dance to it. Dan26 called the tune, and I am dancing to it. This world didn't commence on Monday when he made the opening post to this thread, but long ago when he showed no respect to myself and others who calmly and respectfully pointed out fatal flaws in his system of grading Premiers.

So forgive me now while I hoist him on his own petard.

It is not just that I disagree with his rankings, which of course I do. I disagree with his method of ranking. Not because of what is included, most of which is somewhat relevant to determine the best historic premiers, but because of what is wilfully excluded from his considerations, for eg....

- it is pretty clear that a team who has the indian sign over the competition for an extended period of years, say Melbourne 1955-60, is better(relative to the competition of the day) than a team with one years dominance to show for their efforts. One of anything can and often is a false sign. Extended dominance is a hell of a lot less likely to be a flase sign of how good a team actually is. Dan26 takes no account of this in his rankings.

- taking home and away "dominance" into consideration to determine the strongest premier is laughable. It is basically like saying a Grand Prix racer who wins from 3rd position on the grid has not done as well as a Grand Prix racer who wins the same race from first position on the grid. Or a Grand Prix racer who wins once after qualifying with a better average lap time is better than a Grand Prix racer who wins multiple times after qualifying with a worse average lap time. The home and away season is merely a qualifying round for grid positions in finals. A winning racer might have certain issues in qualifying, which is akin to a Premiership team suffering disruption due to unavailability during the home and away season. But the winner of the race is determined by who wins the final race only. And so it is that the best Premier would be the team that performed the best on Grand Final day.

So we get nonsense like Essendon 2000 who won one flag is number 1 all time Premier according to Dan. Whilst the Lions team who comfortably beat a reasonable facsimile of the same Essendon team 12 months later, and went on to win 3 flags, each time playing the Grand Final at the home ground of their opponent(another thing not ever mentioned) enters his rankings at 63.

Like let's just get mathematical for a moment. What would be the actual odds of a small cohort of teams, say Richmond, + Brisbane/Fitzroy winning between them approximately 1 in every 5 flags ever won in the competition....without a single entry in the top 24 Premiers of all time? Think about it.

We could go on and on, but his list of ranked Premiers is little more than a list of his own biases. All of this has been convincingly pointed out to him before by many posters. He takes no account of reasonable criticisms. Therefore he is due derision. It would be like a scientist having his theorum absolutely disproven by a fellow scientist only to continue to peddle the same theorum as if it had never been disproven - hoping new fools will be impressed by his nonsense.

 

[terrybull]

Have done exactly that before in these threads. And guess what sort of response that was met with from the person you are now saying I should respect?

In my world terrybull, you call the tune, and I dance to it. Dan26 called the tune, and I am dancing to it. This world didn't commence on Monday when he made the opening post to this thread, but long ago when he showed no respect to myself and others who calmly and respectfully pointed out fatal flaws in his system of grading Premiers.

So forgive me now while I hoist him on his own petard.

It is not just that I disagree with his rankings, which of course I do. I disagree with his method of ranking. Not because of what is included, most of which is somewhat relevant to determine the best historic premiers, but because of what is wilfully excluded from his considerations, for eg....

- it is pretty clear that a team who has the indian sign over the competition for an extended period of years, say Melbourne 1955-60, is better(relative to the competition of the day) than a team with one years dominance to show for their efforts. One of anything can and often is a false sign. Extended dominance is a hell of a lot less likely to be a flase sign of how good a team actually is. Dan26 takes no account of this in his rankings.

- taking home and away "dominance" into consideration to determine the strongest premier is laughable. It is basically like saying a Grand Prix racer who wins from 3rd position on the grid has not done as well as a Grand Prix racer who wins the same race from first position on the grid. Or a Grand Prix racer who wins once after qualifying with a better average lap time is better than a Grand Prix racer who wins multiple times after qualifying with a worse average lap time. The home and away season is merely a qualifying round for grid positions in finals. A winning racer might have certain issues in qualifying, which is akin to a Premiership team suffering disruption due to unavailability during the home and away season. But the winner of the race is determined by who wins the final race only. And so it is that the best Premier would be the team that performed the best on Grand Final day.

So we get nonsense like Essendon 2000 who won one flag is number 1 all time Premier according to Dan. Whilst the Lions team who comfortably beat a reasonable facsimile of the same Essendon team 12 months later, and went on to win 3 flags, each time playing the Grand Final at the home ground of their opponent(another thing not ever mentioned) enters his rankings at 63.

Like let's just get mathematical for a moment. What would be the actual odds of a small cohort of teams, say Richmond, + Brisbane/Fitzroy winning beteen them approximately 1 in every 5 flags ever won in the competition....without a single entry in the top 24 Premiers of all time? Think about it.

We could go on and on, but his list of ranked Premiers is little more than a list of his own biases. All of this has been convincingly pointed out to him before by many posters. He takes no account of reasonable criticisms. Therefore he is due derision. It would be like a scientist having his theorum absolutely disproven by a fellow scientist only to continue to peddle the same theorum as if it had never been disproven - hoping new fools will be impressed by his nonsense.

You make some very good points and I agree with most of you said about the criteria of your ranking.

But if you were to make a list in your criteria, someone will try to devalue it and it will be an endless argument, purely on the fact it is impossible to do!

Don’t take it to serious, it’s one man’s opinion and no need to change his mind or devalue the enormous work he has done. But just open discussions how one sees differently without being harsh.

For entanglement purposes only like the WWE says

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You make some very good points and I agree with most of you said about the criteria of your ranking.

But if you were to make a list in your criteria, someone will try to devalue it and it will be an endless argument, purely on the fact it is impossible to do!

Don’t take it to serious, it’s one man’s opinion and no need to change his mind or devalue the enormous work he has done. But just open discussions how one sees differently without being harsh.

For entanglement purposes only like the WWE says

It is an impossible task, I acknowledge that. I have never criticised Dan26 for undertaking the task, just for the errors in both logic and probability in his results.

And to be fair, I wasn't taking this thread seriously at all. I was happily mocking it, before others intervened.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

So we get nonsense like Essendon 2000 who won one flag is number 1 all time Premier according to Dan. Whilst the Lions team who comfortably beat a reasonable facsimile of the same Essendon team 12 months later, and went on to win 3 flags, each time playing the Grand Final at the home ground of their opponent(another thing not ever mentioned) enters his rankings at 63.

FWIW

Essendon in 2001 was nowhere near as good as they were in 2000. Brisbane did not beat that side. The Bombers’ H&A records of 21-1 at 159% in 2000 vs 17-5 at 135% in 2001 illustrate this.

Giving the Lions extra credit for beating the Bombers in the 2001 GF long after that team had stopped blitzing just isn’t right. FYI the 2001 Bombers were only two kicks short of being eliminated in the PF by Hawthorn - a team that had lost to both the spooner Dockers and the 15th placed Saints very late in the season. The Bombers had seriously lost their mojo by the time Brisbane got to them.

Likewise Dan wouldn’t expect the Bombers to deserve more credit for beating North by 120+ in the 2000 QF because of the fact that the Roos were reigning premiers. They just beat that season’s fourth best H&A team. Also North’s horrible performance in the 2000 QF and PF would have nothing to do with how their 1999 flag team is perceived under the rules of this thread - all praise or criticism only applies to the events during the season in which the flag was won. Is this the right way to go about it? I don’t know. As long as it follows its own logic it shouldn’t be too offensive IMO.

 

[screech]

Always a fascinating discussion, however as I have said previously, anything prior to 1991 (or 1987 for that matter) cannot be considered close to the achievement of winning it during the National era. Suburban football did not produce higher or equivalent quality than a national spread of teams. Those higher ranked premierships from earlier years are there merely due to being able to be strong in a clearly inferior competition. Weighting the performance based on the relative strength of the competition would be more meaningful.

 

[screech]

So we get nonsense like Essendon 2000 who won one flag is number 1 all time Premier according to Dan. Whilst the Lions team who comfortably beat a reasonable facsimile of the same Essendon team 12 months later, and went on to win 3 flags, each time playing the Grand Final at the home ground of their opponent(another thing not ever mentioned) enters his rankings at 63.

That premiership was won in a competition that was definitively comprised of the best footballers across the nation, all fully professional. To dominate it like they did makes them a special team. The second ranked (1929 Collingwood), however, was achieved in a suburban competition and a team of all local part-time footballers - the fact that they went undefeated with a team of that nature is more a reflection on the quality of the opposition at the time. The VFL was also not the sole competition for elite footballers in Victoria at the time, with the VFA still able to compete for recruits, meaning there is no definitive indication that the VFL even comprised the absolute best in Victoria at the time, let alone across the country.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

FWIW

Essendon in 2001 was nowhere near as good as they were in 2000. Brisbane did not beat that side. The Bombers’ H&A records of 21-1 at 159% in 2000 vs 17-5 at 135% in 2001 illustrate this.

Giving the Lions extra credit for beating the Bombers in the 2001 GF long after that team had stopped blitzing just isn’t right. FYI the 2001 Bombers were only two kicks short of being eliminated in the PF by Hawthorn - a team that had lost to both the spooner Dockers and the 15th placed Saints very late in the season. The Bombers had seriously lost their mojo by the time Brisbane got to them.

Likewise Dan wouldn’t expect the Bombers to deserve more credit for beating North by 120+ in the 2000 QF because of the fact that the Roos were reigning premiers. They just beat that season’s fourth best H&A team. Also North’s horrible performance in the 2000 QF and PF would have nothing to do with how their 1999 flag team is perceived under the rules of this thread - all praise or criticism only applies to the events during the season in which the flag was won. Is this the right way to go about it? I don’t know. As long as it follows its own logic it shouldn’t be too offensive IMO.

Your post is perfectly reasoned and articulated. But I would ask how good can a team be if they did not prove to be historically strong beyond the limits of a single season? We have no real way of verifying that the 21-1, 159% and 3 strong finals wins was not caused by something other than Essendon's greatness.

He is rating them the best Premiership team(therefore the best team) ever to take the field. Teams have been as good as good enough to win 5 of 6 flags and be runner-up in the year they didn't win within that. Which almost certainly means they have had to endure at the top through all types of weather, injury issues, teams trying to bash them, pick apart their playing style, emulate them, outspend them, throw full strength, in form teams at them, and whatever else. For 6 consecutive years. You cannot possibly achieve that accidentally. What Essendon did in 2000 could as easily be an accident of the teams that would have otherwise challenged falling away in their finals performance for whatever reason.

The changes to the Essendon premiership team 2000 to their Grand Final team 2001 were:

Jacobs for Wallis
D Rioli for M Long
Mcveigh for Bewick

It is more or less the same team, none of those 3 changes altering the standard of the team too much at all. So did they suddenly get a whole lot worse in 2001, or did the challnegers get a whole lot better? There is a hell of a lot pointing to the latter, as well as some things pointing to the former.

 

[STPer18]

• Ctrl+F 'Richmond'
• "Oh there they are all the way down the list, this isn't going to end well"

Good luck OP, see you on the other side!

 

[Dan26]

The changes to the Essendon premiership team 2000 to their Grand Final team 2001 were:

Jacobs for Wallis
D Rioli for M Long
Mcveigh for Bewick

It is more or less the same team, none of those 3 changes altering the standard of the team too much at all. So did they suddenly get a whole lot worse in 2001, or did the challnegers get a whole lot better? There is a hell of a lot pointing to the latter, as well as some things pointing to the former.

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. What was the difference in personnel between Richmond's 2016 round 23 team that lost to Sydney by 120 points and their 2017 premiership side 25 games later?

What is the difference in terms of playing lists between Geelong 2006 (who won 10 games) and Geelong 2007?

What is the difference between Brisbane 2000 (who won 12 games) and Brisbane 2001?

Does Collingwood of 2023 get marked down, simply because their 2024 side missed the finals?

Does Carlton of 1995 (one of the best teams ever) get marked down because they finished with only a 15-9 record in 1996?

Playing lists might look similar from one year to the next (eg Richmond 2016 compared to 2017), but it's not how they look, it's how they play. Players are at different stages of their careers. The delicate balance of age, ability, cohesion, tactics can vary wildly from one year to the next even amongst similar lists.

I am NOT (and nor should anyone) rate one premiership side better or worse based on what the same club did 12 months later or earlier. That's just stupid. Premierships are singular individual achievements won year to year.

If you want to make a list of the best ERA's that certain clubs have had, then be my guest. This is not that. This a list of the best premiership sides of all time, not who won the most premierships over a designated period of time. The fact that there are 128 spots on the list in order should be a giveaway to anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence that all 128 sides are ranked on their quality in the year they won it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. What was the difference in personnel between Richmond's 2016 round 23 team that lost to Sydney by 120 points and their 2017 premiership side 25 games later?

What is the difference in terms of playing lists between Geelong 2006 (who won 10 games) and Geelong 2007?

What is the difference between Brisbane 2000 (who won 12 games) and Brisbane 2001?

Does Collingwood of 2023 get marked down, simply because their 2024 side missed the finals?

Does Carlton of 1995 (one of the best teams ever) get marked down because they finished with only a 15-9 record in 1996?

Playing lists might look similar from one year to the next (eg Richmond 2016 compared to 2017), but it's not how they look, it's how they play. Players are at different stages of their careers. The delicate balance of age, ability, cohesion, tactics can vary wildly from one year to the next even amongst similar lists.

I am NOT (and nor should anyone) rate one premiership side better or worse based on what the same club did 12 months later or earlier. That's just stupid. Premierships are singular individual achievements won year to year.

If you want to make a list of the best ERA's that certain clubs have had, then be my guest. This is not that. This a list of the best premiership sides of all time, not who won the most premierships over a designated period of time. The fact that there are 128 spots on the list in order should be a giveaway to anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence that all 128 sides are ranked on their quality in the year they won it.

Let me address your first question first.

The difference between Richmond's final round team in 2016 and their 2017 flag team was:

out - Taylor Hunt, Sam Lloyd, Shaun Hampson, Andrew Moore, Oleg Markov, Callum Moore, Todd Elton, Mabior Chol.

in - Caddy, Prestia, Nankervis, Townsend, Graham, Castagna, Butler, Houli

The best career in the first group is roughly equal to the worst career in the second group.

Plus a new coaching panel to support the head coach, plus a whole new game style, plus a brand new and different mental and relationship approach, both on and off the field. Also, one game was final round with nothing to play for, the other was a Grand Final coming off a 37 year Premiership drought. A much closer comparison to Essendon 2000-01 would be the Richmond 2019-20 transition. Essentially the same team, essentially the same game plan.

So that was a silly comparison by you.

Essendon changes 2000-01 were much more like the changes a team would go through in the middle of a dynasty, ie minimal change.

Teams make major leaps up the ladder are normally due to major changes or a critical mass of players maturing sufficiently or things along those lines. Teams making major declines year to year are normally down to disruption or injury or an importnat group of players going past their peaks around the same time. None of these things were true of the Bombers 2000-2001, they were essentially the same team, under the same coach, same game style and so on. They had clearly declined a little, but Lions were a good margin better than them in the GF and they did not win the PF convincingly. Judging by home and away % the Bombers were about 5 goals better in 2000 than in 2001(assuming the rest of the AFL were of similar standard, draw similar degree of difficulty etc.) If you add 5 goals to their 2001 GF score, it is a marginal game. Yet you rank Essendon 2000 number 1, and Brisbane 2001 the 63rd ranked Premier of all time. Those rankings, to be accurate, would require Essendon, with just 3 players different, same game plan same coaching structure etc to have deteriorated by about 15 goals per game in performance. That is allowng for each team being 1 solitary point worse than the team ranked above it.

And let's face it Dan, if there is less than 1 point difference between each level in your rankings, then there is nowhere near enough margin to be calling each successive team better than the one below it.

 

[Dan26]

Let me address your first question first.

The difference between Richmond's final round team in 2016 and their 2017 flag team was:

out - Taylor Hunt, Sam Lloyd, Shaun Hampson, Andrew Moore, Oleg Markov, Callum Moore, Todd Elton, Mabior Chol.

in - Caddy, Prestia, Nankervis, Townsend, Graham, Castagna, Butler, Houli

The best career in the first gorup is roughly equal to the worst career in the second group.

Plus a new coaching panel to support the head coach, plus a whole new game style, plus a brand new and different mental and relationship approach, both on and off the field. Also, one game was final round with nothing to play for, the other was a Grand Final coming off a 37 year Premiership drought. A much closer comparison to Essendon 2000-01 would be the Richmond 2019-20 transition. Essentially the same team, essentially the same game plan.

So that was a silly comparison by you.

Essendon changes 2000-01 were much more like the cahnges a team would go through in the middle of a dynasty, ie minimal change.

Teams make major leaps up the ladder are normally due to major changes or a critical mass of players maturing sufficiently or things along those lines. Teams making major declines year to year are normally down to disruption or injury or an importnat group of players going past their peaks around the same time. None of these things were true of the Bombers 2000-2001, they were essentially the same team, under the same coach, same game style and so on. They had clearly declined a little, but Lions were a good margin better than them in the GF and they did not win the PF convincingly. Judging by home and away % the Bombers were about 5 goals better in 2000 than in 2001(assuming the rest of the AFL were of similar standard, draw similar degree of difficulty etc.) If you add 5 goals to their 2001 GF score, it is a marginal game. Yet you rank Essendon 2000 number 1, and Brisbane 2001 the 63rd ranked Premier of all time. Those rankings, to be accurate, would require Essendon, with just 3 players different, same game plan same coaching structure etc to have deteriorated by about 15 goals per game in performance. That is allowng for each team being 1 solitary point worse than the team ranked above it.

And let's face it Dan, if there is less than 1 point difference between each level in your rankings, then there is nowhere near enough margin to be calling each successive team better than the one below it.

The difference between Essendon of 2000 and Essendon of 2001 was immense. There is no comparison. Towards the end of the 2001 season Essendon was essentially a middle-of-the-road team. The Bombers only won 5 of their last 9 games., They were shot.

Essendon of 2000 was, for all intents and purposes unbeatable. A percentage of over 160%, the combined biggest finals winning margins in history (230 point cumulatively). They actually beat the Lions at the Gabba that year in the wet by 10 goals - a Lions side that - using your logic - was the same as their 2001 side because nearly all the players were the same

This insinuation by you that teams are the same from one year to the next are simply untrue. The delicate balance of where players are in their careers can create that perfect storm in a season.

Richmond missed the finals in 2021 finishing 12th with a percentage of 97%, yet I am not rating their 2020 side lower because of their crapness in 2021.

All sides are ranked based on the year they won it. I refuse to lower Richmond's 2020 ranking because of their bad 2021 performance with mostly the same players. I will not rate Collingwood's 2023 premiership lower because of their poor 2024 performance.

As I said earlier, if you want to do you own list of "era's" - not individual teams - then go ahead. Until then, you are just going to have to accept that none of Richmond's recent premiership teams was, in isolation, particularly outstanding by premiership standards. Ironically, the Tigers best team in that era - 2018 - didn't win the premiership. If they did, I probably would have put their 2018 side somewhere in the top 35-40, but they choked unfortunately.

 

[Cookie]

Remove the war years premierships or put an * next to them.
The real champs were either passed away or in uniform.

 

[Lia]

Hope we have another 20 years of this thread so I can keep laughing at people not understanding that it only measures performance over one season.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Hope we have another 20 years of this thread so I can keep laughing at people not understanding that it only measures performance over one season.

The trouble is you can't measure performance over one season in isolation then purport to accurately rank the merits of each premiership team versus the next. Because that is to assume that all else remains static and only the merits of the Premiership teams change. Which when you think about it, is laughable.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The difference between Essendon of 2000 and Essendon of 2001 was immense. There is no comparison. Towards the end of the 2001 season Essendon was essentially a middle-of-the-road team. The Bombers only won 5 of their last 9 games., They were shot.

Essendon of 2000 was, for all intents and purposes unbeatable. A percentage of over 160%, the combined biggest finals winning margins in history (230 point cumulatively). They actually beat the Lions at the Gabba that year in the wet by 10 goals - a Lions side that - using your logic - was the same as their 2001 side because nearly all the players were the same

This insinuation by you that teams are the same from one year to the next are simply untrue. The delicate balance of where players are in their careers can create that perfect storm in a season.

Richmond missed the finals in 2021 finishing 12th with a percentage of 97%, yet I am not rating their 2020 side lower because of their crapness in 2021.

All sides are ranked based on the year they won it. I refuse to lower Richmond's 2020 ranking because of their bad 2021 performance with mostly the same players. I will not rate Collingwood's 2023 premiership lower because of their poor 2024 performance.

As I said earlier, if you want to do you own list of "era's" - not individual teams - then go ahead. Until then, you are just going to have to accept that none of Richmond's recent premiership teams was, in isolation, particularly outstanding by premiership standards. Ironically, the Tigers best team in that era - 2018 - didn't win the premiership. If they did, I probably would have put their 2018 side somewhere in the top 35-40, but they choked unfortunately.

There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Essendon, with the 90% same team, same coach, same game plan etc were 15+ goals worse in 2001 than they were in 2000. And remember, you need them to be at least that or your ranking of Essendon 2000 at number 1 v Brisbane 2001 at number 63 is obviously wrong.

And I will show you why that is Dan.

The bottom team in 2000, 16th on the ladder 2 wins for the season 70% St Kilda, were 4.5 wins beneath second last. So they were historically bad even for a wooden spooner. That St Kilda team were on average 12.5 goals worse than Essendon 2000 during the home and away season.

So for 2nd on the ladder 2001 Essendon, who went 17-5, 134% top of the home and away ladder, won 2 finals, one of those by 70 points against a top 4 team(top 4 both home and away and post finals), to be 15+ goals worse than 2000 Essendon, would require 2001 Essendon to be about 3 goals worse than 2000 wooden spooner St Kilda. Which is palpably ludicrous.

So your ranking system falls apart right there.

 

[Thrawn]

This is such a ridiculous thing to say. What was the difference in personnel between Richmond's 2016 round 23 team that lost to Sydney by 120 points and their 2017 premiership side 25 games later?

What is the difference in terms of playing lists between Geelong 2006 (who won 10 games) and Geelong 2007?

What is the difference between Brisbane 2000 (who won 12 games) and Brisbane 2001?

Does Collingwood of 2023 get marked down, simply because their 2024 side missed the finals?

Does Carlton of 1995 (one of the best teams ever) get marked down because they finished with only a 15-9 record in 1996?

Playing lists might look similar from one year to the next (eg Richmond 2016 compared to 2017), but it's not how they look, it's how they play. Players are at different stages of their careers. The delicate balance of age, ability, cohesion, tactics can vary wildly from one year to the next even amongst similar lists.

I am NOT (and nor should anyone) rate one premiership side better or worse based on what the same club did 12 months later or earlier. That's just stupid. Premierships are singular individual achievements won year to year.

If you want to make a list of the best ERA's that certain clubs have had, then be my guest. This is not that. This a list of the best premiership sides of all time, not who won the most premierships over a designated period of time. The fact that there are 128 spots on the list in order should be a giveaway to anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence that all 128 sides are ranked on their quality in the year they won it.

None of this matters, Dan.

You put Geelong '22 team in that '00 GF and they beat Essendon convincingly because every Geelong player on average is fitter, faster and stronger.

I am convinced the only reason you started this list so many years ago was to wave around and gloat about Essendon's '00 premiership. I'd best my house that if Carlton's '95 (as an example) had a 100% win rate in the H&A of 170% and a premiership, either this list wouldn't exist or you'd still find a way to put your beloved Bombers at #1.

 

[Dan26]

There is not a snowflake's chance in hell that Essendon, with the 90% same team, same coach, same game plan etc were 15+ goals worse in 2001 than they were in 2000.

I never said they were 15 goals worse. You are just making stuff up.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I never said they were 15 goals worse. You are just making stuff up.

Well how much difference do you think there is on average between each Premiership team and the team ranked immediately below it in your rankings?

How many points per match for example would Essendon's 2000 Premiership team be better than Brisbane's 2001 Premiership team, in your opinion?

 

[Dan26]

You put Geelong '22 team in that '00 GF and they beat Essendon convincingly because every Geelong player on average is fitter, faster and stronger.

It's all opinion on who you think is the better team, but by the mid 1990's all teams were very professional in their fitness standard and professionalism. Geelong of 2022 I rate within the top 20% of all teams. They were outstanding. The guy from Champion data (which started in 1999) said that Geelong of 2022 was so strong entering the finals series, that it was almost impossible for them to not win it. CD also rates Essendon of 2000 as the best team since they started their company. The Bombers were really on a different level to most other modern day teams that season.

In terms of premiership teams since the turn of the Millenium, only Geelong of 2007 in my opinion would be able to compete and win 40-45% of their games against Essendon in a head to head contest. Interestingly those two teams were only separated by just 7 years and their combined finals winning margin (230 points) was identical for both teams. I reckon if you played them head-to-head over a 22 game home and away season with the players at the same ages and stages of their careers, it would probably be 13-9-ish in favor of Essendon.

Where the Bombers of 2000 have an edge is their incredible record against the elite teams. Essendon of 2000 had a record of over 160% versus the other finalists, which is off the planet. Geelong of 2007 was about 130%-ish versus the other finalists. The reason why Geelong of 2007 had an overall percentage from 25 games of 160% was because they had a percentage of about 190% versus the NON-finalists.

That means Essendon in 2000 was essentially about 5 goals better per game versus the finalists than Geelong of 2007 was against the finalists. And if you look at the other 2007 finalists you could throw a blanket over them. It's not as if there was a lot of competition for Geelong that year, which is not a criticism because that doesn't change how good they were themselves.

But the Bombers percentage versus the other finalists of over 160% is so ridiculously good, you could almost start a thread about that one stat. You almost have to do a double-take to realize that that stat is real.

 

[Dan26]

How many points per match for example would Essendon's 2000 Premiership team be better than Brisbane's 2001 Premiership team, in your opinion?

Well, if you go only by the numbers:

Essendon of 2000 (25 matches):
Points for: 3274 (av. 130.96)
Points against: 1998 (av. 79.92

Brisbane 2001 (25 matches)
Points for: 2870 (av. 114.8)
Points against: 2195 (av 87.8)

In a pure number sense this makes Essendon of 2000 24.04 points better, or 4 goals.

But there also more to than just the established numbers. Essendon's 2000 percentage versus the finalists (about 160%) was the same as their percentage versus the non-finalists (also about 160%). This is unlike any modern team in history who usually have better and more dominant figures versus the non-finalists, for obvious reasons - the non-finalists are bad teams.

Obviously if they have a percentage of 160% versus the finalists, they should be able to have a percentage of 180-190% versus the non-finalists. That's just common-sense. The fact that they didn't shows that they eased up on teams. Even eased up on some good teams. There was a match that season mid year versus the Kangaroos where the quarter time score was 47-0. The final margin was 49. That happened a lot during the year.

So that 4 goal statistical difference between Essendon of 2000 and Brisbane of 2001 is probably closer to 5 or 6. I believe the Bombers in 2000 were capable of having a percentage of over 170%

Essendon's 6 narrowest wins that year were as follows:

13-points versus Melb
13 points vs Sydney (non finalist)
19-points vs Collingwood (non finalist)
24-points versus Carlton (53 point margin at 3/4 time...eased up)
26-points versus Carlton
31-points versus Port (non finalist)
32 points versus WCE (non finalist)

Those were the 6 closest wins. They are nearly all versus bad teams, and one of matches versus a good team they parked the bus at three-quarter time. Those 6 wins (their 6 worst wins) tells you more about the Bombers than most other stats.

 

[Thrawn]

13-points versus Melb
13 points vs Sydney (non finalist)
19-points vs Collingwood (non finalist)
24-points versus Carlton (53 point margin at 3/4 time...eased up)
31-points versus Port (non finalist)
32 points versus WCE (non finalist)

You forgot Round 20, 2000... Carlton and Essendon were relatively even at 3 quarter time, where we ran out of legs (Kouta and Bradley injured). The final margin ended up being 26 points. That game was a better measuring stick that the previous one because Carlton were in form during that period, only reason it wasn't closer was because the best player in the competition was out for most of the match, and losing an elite winger in Braddles.

Edit: Looking at the lineups, Allan missed that match. Good ruckman during that period, too.

 

[Dan26]

You forgot Round 20, 2000... Carlton and Essendon were relatively even at 3 quarter time, where we ran out of legs (Kouta and Bradley injured). The final margin ended up being 26 points. That game was a better measuring stick that the previous one because Carlton were in form during that period, only reason it wasn't closer was because the best player in the competition was out for most of the match, and losing an elite winger in Braddles.

I remember that match. Probably the biggest H&A game there has been. Yes you're right about the margin, I've now edited my previous post. The Blues took it up to the Bombers. Carlton were at their best during that period of the year. They had just had a 13-win streak broken the previous week. In most other seasons Carlton would have been premiers.