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%

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.

In finals v the best teams when everyone is definitely playing for keeps.

Team A 3w 0l 201%(all home ground)

Team B 3w 0l 199%(including an interstate away final)

Team A played 3 teams with a combined 44 home and away wins and 120% average.

Team B played 3 teams with 45 home and away wins combined and 122% average.


Which team played better in finals Dan, team A, or team B?

 

[Dan26]

In finals v the best teams when everyone is definitely playing for keeps.

Team A 3w 0l 201%(all home ground)

Team B 3w 0l 199%(including an interstate away final)

Team A played 3 teams with a combined 44 home and away wins and 120% average.

Team B played 3 teams with 45 home and away wins combined and 122% average.


Which team played better in finals Dan, team A, or team B?

I don't recall having ever chatted to you before, despite your high post count. Do you have a reputation for always being this annoying?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.

Your claims here of Essendon easing up on weaker teams have zero value in the context of the thread.

You have neither established this as anywhere near factual nor have you even begun to consider whether other Premiers may have done the same thing.

Neither have you shown there is any great dividing line between teams in the 8 and teams out of the 8 in 2000.

I will repeat, Essendon's 4 biggest home and away wins that season were against teams who did not make the 8.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I don't recall having ever chatted to you before, despite your high post count. Do you have a reputation for always being this annoying?

It is a shame you are annoyed. A person wanting to find the truth would not be annoyed by a person criticising their work. They would welcome it, and use it as an opportunity to improve the quality of their rankings.

 

[Dan26]

It is a shame you are annoyed. A person wanting to find the truth would not be annoyed by a person criticising their work. They would welcome it, and use it as an opportunity to improve the quality of their rankings.

I'm happy for people to have opinion and criticize whatever they want. Your selective reasoning though is getting absurd.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I don't recall having ever chatted to you before, despite your high post count. Do you have a reputation for always being this annoying?

Why not respond to the question?

Here, I will post it again.

In finals v the best teams when everyone is definitely playing for keeps.

Team A 3w 0l 201%(all home ground)

Team B 3w 0l 199%(including an interstate away final)

Team A played 3 teams with a combined 44 home and away wins and 120% average.

Team B played 3 teams with 45 home and away wins combined and 122% average.


Which team played better in finals Dan, team A, or team B?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm happy for people to have opinion and criticize whatever they want. Your selective reasoning though is getting absurd.

I am only selecting bits I can see will strengthen your rankings if you can either use them, or explain convincingly why you would not use them.

People thought I was being harsh on you at first, so now I am being constructive.

 

[Dan26]

Your claims here of Essendon easing up on weaker teams have zero value in the context of the thread.

You have neither established this as anywhere near factual

Compare that big bolded number (whilst still extraordinarily high in its own right) to Collingwood and Geelong of 2011, Geelong 2007 and Geelong of 2022.

What does the fact that 167.74% and 160.48% are so close together tell you?


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%

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%

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Compare that big bolded number (whilst still extraordinarily high in its own right) to Collingwood and Geelong of 2011, Geelong 2007 and Geelong of 2022.

What does the fact that 167.74% and 160.48% are so close together tell you?


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%
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%

I am sorry, I thought you were saying Essendon were the best Premiership team in history.

I have already found 2 teams that appear to have performed objectively better than Essendon in a finals series. There are likely to be more(though this is not certain.)

How and why exactly does the above take precedence over finals performance?

 

[Dan26]

You really would think winning three finals by the equal highest cumulative margin in history would be enough, even if that was the only metric that matters (which of course it's not)

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You really would think winning three finals by the equal highest cumulative margin in history would be enough, even if that was the only metric that matters (which of course it's not)

Well, yes you really would think that Dan. Until you consider that it is neither the recognised method of discerning scoring dominance in footy, nor is it the method that gives the most accurate picture. The better method of course, is the tried and true method of percentage. Ie score/score conceded.

And while Essendon 2000 were very, very good at scoring compared to other premiers, they weren't very good at defending scoring compared to most other Premiers.

Did you know Dan, that the 2000 Bombers let through an average of 76 points in finals against their opponents in 2000. Which tends to suggest they might have had a bit of trouble against a fit firing quality midfield & forward combination who could defend themselves. Like Brisbane 2001 for one example. And oh, how fortunate, we get to see whether that is true or not, because in 2001, the Bombers met Brisbane in the Grand Final with a team that looked suspiciously like the Bombers 2000 Grand Final team on paper. And jeez, look what happened, Bombers conceded 33 scoring shots, 108 points, whilst only mustering 22 scoring shots and 82 points themselves, against the parsimonious Brisbane defence. Who would have thought?

And when we look at other Premiers, Hawthorn 1988 for example stands out as a team who were very dominant in finals, to the tune of 216% and unbeaten in their finals campaign. This compares favourably witht eh Essendon 2000 finals percentage of 201%, does it not?

Or Carlton 1908, who had a finals percentage of 228%. You must have missed that Dan. They lost only 1 game for the season, had a clearly superior finals % compared to Essendon 2000, playing against teams in finals who had similar win ratios and % to what Essendon met in finals. And this Carlton team DID NOT get to play finals on their home ground and DID NOT get to play over 80% of games for the season split between 2 venues. They had to play during the season at no less than 8 separate away venues, v Bombers 4. And their home and away percentage was 10% above Essendon 2000 AND they won 2 other Premierships, whereas that Bomber side won no other Premierships. Why exactly are Essendon 2000 a better team than Carlton 1908 relative to the competition? Because from where I sit, they are as good or better from basically every perspective, including degree of difficulty.

Let's see what you wrote about Carlton 1908 Dan....

8.) Carlton 1908. Carlton’s first golden era produced three great sides, the best of which was the 1908 side. Jack Worrall became the first ever coach, and propelled the Blues to 19-1, with a percentage of 173.7%. Old timers still hold this side as the greatest, and if modern coaching techniques were applied, no doubt they would still be hard to beat in the present day.

Oh dear, you gave them a great rap. But then ranked them 7 spots beneath a team compared to who they had a better h & a %, better finals % against teams with similar h & a credentials on average, similar w/l ratio, and a tougher run with venues.

And crucially, you failed to say why they ranked 7 positions below your beloved Bombers. I guess the end of that sentence might give us a clue.

 

[Dan26]

Well, yes you really would think that Dan. Until you consider that it is neither the recognised method of discerning scoring dominance in footy, nor is it the method that gives the most accurate picture. The better method of course, is the tried and true method of percentage. Ie score/score conceded.

And while Essendon 2000 were very, very good at scoring compared to other premiers, they weren't very good at defending scoring compared to most other Premiers.

Did you know Dan, that the 2000 Bombers let through an average of 76 points in finals against their opponents in 2000. Which tends to suggest they might have had a bit of trouble against a fit firing quality midfield & forward combination who could defend themselves. Like Brisbane 2001 for one example. And oh, how fortunate, we get to see whether that is true or not, because in 2001, the Bombers met Brisbane in the Grand Final with a team that looked suspiciously like the Bombers 2000 Grand Final team on paper. And jeez, look what happened, Bombers conceded 33 scoring shots, 108 points, whilst only mustering 22 scoring shots and 82 points themselves, against the parsimonious Brisbane defence. Who would have thought?

And when we look at other Premiers, Hawthorn 1988 for example stands out as a team who were very dominant in finals, to the tune of 216% and unbeaten in their finals campaign. This compares favourably witht eh Essendon 2000 finals percentage of 201%, does it not?

Or Carlton 1908, who had a finals percentage of 228%. You must have missed that Dan. They lost only 1 game for the season, had a clearly superior finals % compared to Essendon 2000, playing against teams in finals who had similar win ratios and % to what Essendon met in finals. And this Carlton team DID NOT get to play finals on their home ground and DID NOT get to play over 80% of games for the season split between 2 venues. They had to play during the season at no less than 8 separate away venues, v Bombers 4. And their home and away percentage was 10% above Essendon 2000 AND they won 2 other Premierships, whereas that Bomber side won no other Premierships. Why exactly are Essendon 2000 a better team than Carlton 1908 relative to the competition? Because from where I sit, they are as good or better from basically every perspective, including degree of difficulty.

Let's see what you wrote about Carlton 1908 Dan....

8.) Carlton 1908. Carlton’s first golden era produced three great sides, the best of which was the 1908 side. Jack Worrall became the first ever coach, and propelled the Blues to 19-1, with a percentage of 173.7%. Old timers still hold this side as the greatest, and if modern coaching techniques were applied, no doubt they would still be hard to beat in the present day.

Oh dear, you gave them a great rap. But then ranked them 7 spots beneath a team compared to who they had a better h & a %, better finals % against teams with similar h & a credentials on average, similar w/l ratio, and a tougher run with venues.

And crucially, you failed to say why they ranked 7 positions below your beloved Bombers. I guess the end of that sentence might give us a clue.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Collingwood 1927 finals percentage 228%, against teams with better home and away records than what Essendon 2000 met. Why did they do better in finals, also not played at their home ground, if Essendon 2000 were a better team than them?

Especially when Collingwood also franked their status with several Premierships in succession immediately after this, something Essendon 2000 obviously did not do.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Melbourne 2021 with a finals percentage of 213% against teams who had on average performed better in the home and away season than the teams Essendon 2000 met in finals. And with no finals home advantage. Why did they perform better than Essendon 2000 in finals if Essendon 2000 were better than them.

Dan26 you say I am clutching at straws friend. Your trouble is there seems to be quite a lot of straws to clutch at. And they seem pretty solid.

 

[Pistol Night]

Collingwood 1927 finals percentage 228%, against teams with better home and away records than what Essendon 2000 met. Why did they do better in finals, also not played at their home ground, if Essendon 2000 were a better team than them?

Especially when Collingwood also franked their status with several Premierships in succession immediately after this, something Essendon 2000 obviously did not do.

You must be balls deep in a serious shitfight if you're fluffing our pills like this.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

And Melbourne 1960 Dan26. Finals percentage 303%. Why did they perform so much better than Essendon 2000 in finals if Essendon 2000 were better than them. And lo and behold, here is yet another team that franked their brilliant finals series with a stack of flags in surrounding seasons.

Why is the Essendon 2000 Premiership team better than them Dan?