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

[Wojcinski]

Meteoric Rise you don't have to take offense to every single post that isn't gargling Richmond's nuts on the whole of BigFooty

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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

Sadly for you guys, my winner is the Blues 1908.

So it is not all good news for the Pies.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Meteoric Rise you don't have to take offense to every single post that isn't gargling Richmond's nuts on the whole of BigFooty

You don't have to post that on every thread I post on. I already know you mistakingly think that is my mission.

 

[bzparkes]

Gee, a lot of mental gymnastics from people who can't get over the fact that Essendon had the singular greatest premiership season of all time.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Gee, a lot of mental gymnastics from people who can't get over the fact that Essendon had the singular greatest premiership season of all time.

Challenge yourself then and explain why Essendon 2000 season was better than say Carlton 1908 season.

This will be good.

 

[bzparkes]

Challenge yourself then and explain why Essendon 2000 season was better than say Carlton 1908 season.

This will be good.

Why?

A bunch of farmers in a small unprofessional league.

Who cares?

 

[Cyclops]

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.

Yep spot on.

There are weak and strong years, eg last year we surged as Melbourne, Sydney and Geelong dipped: we have problems with two of those in final.

There are bogey sides (whatever that means, but it's real) for us Carlton in their golden era 68-87, or for Port us in 02 and 03.

The utter emphasis on w/l raises the question, what of runners up with better w/l ratios? Sure the terms don't include them. But why not? There's zero subtlety, it's a numerical list with one, maybe 2 qualifiers.

What about uneven draws? Lopsided travel? Injuries? Rule changes? Cheating? Weather? War?

This simplistic analysis defies the observed reality of football: that Hird and Lloyd were over rated, and Dan doth protest too much.

Its worth discussing, but this system is trite.

Ultimately in these sort of pissing contests the wisdom of Bill Walton comes to mind. An interviewer was trying to bait him into comparing Jordan's relentless Bulls to his 86 Celtics, or the immortal 1960s 8 in a row Celtics led by Bill Russell. He dismissed the idea, and when pressed he said " only one way to find out, suit em up and play seven".

Of course it's ridiculous, Jordan's Bulls would lose to this year's champs because of the age gap. But so is ranking the best Premiership side off one factor (with what, percentage as tiebreaker? Lol).

 

[skipper kelly]

Why?

A bunch of farmers in a small unprofessional league.

Who cares?

Polly and Jeff went OK.

 

[bzparkes]

Polly and Jeff went OK.

Watch the game did you?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Why?

A bunch of farmers in a small unprofessional league.

Who cares?

But the thread is clearly purporting to rate the premiership teams in relation to the competition they were playing in.

If we are talking absolute performance, all modern Premiership teams would kill Essendon's 2000 Premiership team. The Bombers would not even know what had hit them(neither would any other team of that era.)

So when you say Essendon had the "singular greatest premiership season of all time" do you mean based on absolute performance, or relative performance(relative to the competition of the day?)

 

[bzparkes]

But the thread is clearly purporting to rate the premiership teams in relation to the competition they were playing in.

If we are talking absolute performance, all modern Premiership teams would kill Essendon's 2000 Premiership team. The Bombers would not even know what had hit them(neither would any other team of that era.)

So when you say Essendon had the "singular greatest premiership season of all time" do you mean based on absolute performance, or relative performance(relative to the competition of the day?)

OP has given their criteria and I'm happy to agree with it.

If you're rating other teams by a different criteria, then give us your list.

If you've already posted either a list, or criteria, direct me to the post.

 

[Matthew2708]

For what its worth. It's hard to believe that two of the three highest-rated in the AFL era failed to win the premiership.

"it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players/teams from different eras and that they could only measure the strength of a player/team as compared to their contemporaries."

I do wish it was possible to compare eras.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

OP has given their criteria and I'm happy to agree with it.

If you're rating other teams by a different criteria, then give us your list.

If you've already posted either a list, or criteria, direct me to the post.

The o/p didn't ay anything about dismissing teams in teh early 1900's because they were a bunch of farmers in a small unprofessional league. That first post purports to rate every team relative to the competition of the day.

Here is specifically what he said in the o/p:

I use relativity, taking into account the standard of the competition at the time, so as to not disadvantage teams from the past who were not competing in a national competition, with the resources and professionalism of modern day clubs.

So it was you that introduced the notion of writing the Carlton 1908 out of the picture due to the league not being fully professional, not the o/p.

So you are out of step with the thread. So again I ask you, when you said "Essendon had he greatest Premiership season of all time," did you mean in absolute terms, like they would beat a current day Premier, or in relative terms, that they were relatively more superior to the competition of the day than any other Premier in history?

 

[BF Tiger]

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.

Did Essendon really ease up against Melbourne, where the quarter time margins were 3, 12, 15 and 13 points?

Or Sydney, where the quarter time margins were 1, 12, 12 and 13 points?

Or Collingwood, who led by 18 points at half time?

Or Carlton where the quarter time margins were 13, 1, 2 and 26 points?

Versus Port I'd argue that the Bombers established a lead but never eased up, with the margin 4 to 5 goals throughout most of the game.

And against West Coast the Eagles led a quarter time by a goal before Essendon led by 20, 25 and 32 points at the other breaks.

 

[bzparkes]

The o/p didn't ay anything about dismissing teams in teh early 1900's because they were a bunch of farmers in a small unprofessional league. That first post purports to rate every team relative to the competition of the day.

Here is specifically what he said in the o/p:




So it was you that introduced the notion of writing the Carlton 1908 out of the picture due to the league not being fully professional, not the o/p.

So you are out of step with the thread. So again I ask you, when you said "Essendon had he greatest Premiership season of all time," did you mean in absolute terms, like they would beat a current day Premier, or in relative terms, that they were relatively more superior to the competition of the day than any other Premier in history?

Cool, give us your criteria.

 

[Cyclops]

I've got a criteria: did they wear black white stripes and play in the VFL/AFL? If yes then they are the equal greatest premiers.

If not, so sad, try again.

My reasons for this is relativity, so as to not disadvantage me from having to be relatively sensible when putting my club ahead of the rest.

So the winners are Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood,Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood,Collingwood, Collingwood, Collingwood, and Collingwood.

The rest are equal last who cares. This entirely internally consistent thesis places James Hird and Matty Lloyd in the equal worst premiership side ever.

Discuss.

 

[Cleansweep17]

But the thread is clearly purporting to rate the premiership teams in relation to the competition they were playing in.

If we are talking absolute performance, all modern Premiership teams would kill Essendon's 2000 Premiership team. The Bombers would not even know what had hit them(neither would any other team of that era.)

So when you say Essendon had the "singular greatest premiership season of all time" do you mean based on absolute performance, or relative performance(relative to the competition of the day?)

“Nah we have to analyse their DNA, change their diet and coaching skills to see how they would’ve performed today.”

- Geelong people and Fadge

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Cool, give us your criteria.

The team that performs best in the matches that decided the Premiership, especially the Grand Final, are the best teams. Trying to sort out whether one premier performed better than the next against that criteria, good luck.

Strange you went from having a definite attention grabbing opinion, to diverting all attention away from from your opinion once you were asked to clarify it. Why are you so uncomfortable answerig that simple clarification?

 

[bzparkes]

The team that performs best in the matches that decided the Premiership, especially the Grand Final, are the best teams. Trying to sort out whether one premier performed better than the next against that criteria, good luck.

Strange you went from having a definite attention grabbing opinion, to diverting all attention away from from your opinion once you were asked to clarify it. Why are you so uncomfortable answerig that simple clarification?

Ok, so who makes the best premier, based off your criteria?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ok, so who makes the best premier, based off your criteria?

There is no reliable way of telling which Premiership team is best. There is not even a workable unreliable way. But by what I can make ou of Dan's own criteria, in reality, it would be Carlton 1908.

 

[bzparkes]

There is no reliable way of telling which Premiership team is best. There is not even a workable unreliable way. But by what I can make ou of Dan's own criteria, in reality, it would be Carlton 1908.

Ok, not the worst hypothesis. Dan's I can understand the conclusion he came to, because even though Carlton only lost 1 game and had a higher %, they also had less opportunities to lose games, as Essendon 2000 played more games that season.

Did anyone provide the % and games lost for Essendon at the time Carlton 1908 started finals, by any chance?

 

[Matthew2708]

Ok, not the worst hypothesis. Dan's I can understand the conclusion he came to, because even though Carlton only lost 1 game and had a higher %, they also had less opportunities to lose games, as Essendon 2000 played more games that season.

Did anyone provide the % and games lost for Essendon at the time Carlton 1908 started finals, by any chance?

Does this help?

1908 - 1st: Carlton: 17 Wins - 1 Lost - 169.4%
1908 - 2nd: Essendon: 14 Wins - 4 Lost - 142.5%
1908 Grand Final - Carlton 5.5 (35) def Essendon 3.8 (26). (Carlton only scored 1 point after half time).

2000 - Essendon: 18 Wins - 0 Lost - 164.7%.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Ok, not the worst hypothesis. Dan's I can understand the conclusion he came to, because even though Carlton only lost 1 game and had a higher %, they also had less opportunities to lose games, as Essendon 2000 played more games that season.

Did anyone provide the % and games lost for Essendon at the time Carlton 1908 started finals, by any chance?

The thing is in 2000, Essendon played only 4 of 25 games away from their two home grounds, the MCG and Colonial Stadium, and the Bombers played all finals at one of their home grounds. Carlton 1908 played 8 of their 20 matches at seething hatred opposition suburban cauldrons. And the Blues didn't get to play any finals on their home ground.

Despite this, the Blues had a superior season percentage, superior finals percentage, and only a fractionally inferior w/l record.

Dan26 has made a horlicks of this the lad, made an absolute mess of it he has.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Does this help?

1908 - 1st: Carlton: 17 Wins - 1 Lost - 169.4%
1908 - 2nd: Essendon: 14 Wins - 4 Lost - 142.5%
1908 Grand Final - Carlton 5.5 (35) def Essendon 3.8 (26). (Carlton only scored 1 point after half time).

2000 - Essendon: 18 Wins - 0 Lost - 164.7%.

Dan would be bound to say the Blues eased up after half time because they had it won.

 

[year of the cat]

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.

I’d argue there was even less competition for the Bombers in 2000 than we had in ‘07. Was a weak year that the Bombers exploited.