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

[Thrawn]

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.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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)
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.

Fortunately we have an easy way to fact check your claim Dan.

This is Essendon's 1/4 by 1/4 scoring for 2000:



There is no evidence there whatsoever they had a habit of "easing up" on teams. Now you are making things up. Essendon's 4 biggest wins in the 2000 home and away seasons were against teams who did not make finals. And the reason some of their closer matches were against non-finalists is as likely to be because most of those games were played on those club's home grounds as anything. There really wasn't a big gap between the 3rd team and the second bottom team. Around 5 goals per game that gap was. And the difference between most finalists and most non-finalists was around just 2-3 goals per game. So there wasn't a great dividing line between finalists and non-finalists.

You are looking only for things that confirm your theory and ignoring anything that suggests your theory might be questionable.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Essendon also had the huge advantage in 2000 of playing 21 of their 25 games across 2 venues. Which may go some way to explaining their dominance being greater than a lot of other Premiers. They essentially had 21 home games and 4 interstate away games.

 

[Fadge]

Dan26 giving Meteoric Rise rise a lesson in statistical analysis and rational thinking.

It's a sight to behold.

I expect Dan26 considered the relative strength of the competition during Richmond's premiership years of 2017/19/20.

I personally would have had them lower.

 

[Dan26]

Fortunately we have an easy way to fact check your claim Dan.

This is Essendon's 1/4 by 1/4 scoring for 2000:

View attachment 2129156

There is no evidence there whatsoever they had a habit of "easing up" on teams. Now you are making things up. Essendon's 4 biggest wins in the 2000 home and away seasons were against teams who did not make finals. And the reason some of their closer matches were against non-finalists is as likely to be because most of those games were played on those club's home grounds as anything. There really wasn't a big gap between the 3rd team and the second bottom team. Around 5 goals per game that gap was. And the difference between most finalists and most non-finalists was around just 2-3 goals per game. So there wasn't a great dividing line between finalists and non-finalists.

You are looking only for things that confirm your theory and ignoring anything that suggests your theory might be questionable.

They clearly eased up on the lesser teams. How can you have a percentage the same versus the finalists as versus the non-finalists unless you ease up on them? Think about that logically.

And that doesn't necessarily mean getting out to a big lead then easing up. I don't mean it like that. Two examples of Essendon doing that versus GOOD teams have already been mentioned (Essendon leacding 47-0 vs North and winning by 49 and leading the Blues by 53 at 3/4 time efore winning by 24)

I am talking about just doing enough to beat the crap team from start to finish. Essendon was no more dominant against the lesser teams than they were against the best teams. Those quarter numbers you show, don't show anything because it doesn't differentiate between who the teams are.

You seem to think I was talking about getting out to a big lead against the lesser team then easing up. That's not what I was saying. I'm saying they were no more dominant against the lower teams than they were against the better teams (which is a statistical fact) meaning they could have easily crushed the lower teams by even more if they put the foot down for four quarters.

 

[Fadge]

They clearly eased up on the lesser teams. How can you have a percentage the same versus the finalists as versus the non-finalists unless you ease up on them? Think about that logically.

And that doesn't necessarily mean getting out to a big lead then easing up. I don't mean it like that. Two examples of Essendon doing that versus GOOD teams have already been mentioned (Essendon leacding 47-0 vs North and winning by 49 and leading the Blues by 53 at 3/4 time efore winning by 24)

I am talking about just doing enough to beat the crap team from start to finish. Essendon was no more dominant against the lesser teams than they were against the best teams. Those quarter numbers you show, don't show anything because it doesn't differentiate between who the teams are.

You seem to think I was talking about getting out to a big lead against the lesser team then easing up. That's not what I was saying. I'm saying they were no more dominant against the lower teams than they were against the better teams (which is a statistical fact) meaning they could have easily crushed the lower teams by even more if they put the foot down for four quarters.

Yep.

Anyone who watched that Essendon team in 2000 saw them put away an opponent with a quarter or so of scintillating football.

Whether it was in the first quarter, second quarter, or third quarter was neither here nor there. They were just a class above every team they played in that season.

Collingwood did a similar thing to their opponents in 2011. Except Geelong of course. The mongrels....

 

[Father Jack]

I love that Essendon supporters have to wheel out threads like this to get any joy whatsoever out of their team

 

[Dan26]

This is the number I was talking about.

In terms of putting away the best teams, Essendon of 2000 and Geelong 2007 stand as the best sides if the last 25 years

Essendon 2000
Versus non finalists: Pts for 1560, Pts against 930... 167.74%
Versus finalists: Pts for 1714, Pts against 1068..... 160.48%

Geelong 2007:
Versus non finalists: Pts for 1585, Pts against 878... 180.5%
Versus finalists: Pts for 1368, Pts against 967..... 141.5%

Richmond 2019
Versus non finalists: Pts for 1226, Pts against 907... 135.0%
Versus finalists: Pts for 977, Pts against 913..... 107.1%


In a broad sense, you can see Geelong of 2007 just going flat-out against everyone.

 

[Dan26]

Some other interesting numbers:

Geelong 2022
Versus non finalists: Pts for 1462, Pts against 844... 173.22%
Versus finalists: Pts for 1015, Pts against 817..... 124.23%

Geelong 2011:
Versus non finalists: Pts for 1513, Pts against 740... 204.45%
Versus finalists: Pts for 1369, Pts against 1096..... 124.91%

Collingwood 2011
Versus non finalists: Pts for 1497, Pts against 659... 227.0%
Versus finalists: Pts for 1326, Pts against 1133..... 117.03%