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

[Simche]

Not sure using percentage as a methodology to separate teams when draws are uniquely uneven in terms of Premiership sides from year to year and then from era to era, not to mention navigating the modern challenges of travel or relative strength of opposition, is the way to go.

Good on you for having a crack but where you lost me was ranking Richmond 2017 at 83 and Richmond 2019 at 86 when I think every Richmond supporter would say the 2019 side were stronger and overall a better side.

By way of quantifying that, 2019 Richmond finished equal top on points (3rd on percentage) and in terms of finals went to the Gabba and won away by 47 points, beat the top of the ladder Cats in a closely fought prelim and then destroyed GWS who had upset 4th placed Collingwood.

Richmond in 2017 won a game less finishing outright 3rd, despite having a slightly superior percentage to the 2019 team would have benefited from their draw given 2016 they finished outside the 8, won through their finals comfortably by 9 and 6 goal margins at home and then cleaned up the Crows by 48 points, but ostensibly beat two interstate sides on their home deck.

One of those sides was pretty clearly the best team all year (and had arguably been the best team in 2018 when they lost the prelim) while the other was very much viewed as a significant underdog and the result of the grand final an upset. Your numbers don't seem to reflect that.

 

[Dan26]

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.

I’m not talking about “easing up” on the lesser teams in terms of getting a big lead and then taking it easy. That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m talking about Essendon’s cumulative performance over 4-quarters in all games against the non-finalists. As you can see from the numbers there is almost no difference beteeen Essendon’s performances versus the finalists compared to the non-finalists. On the face of it, this doesn’t make sense, especially when you look at, say, Collingwood 2011 who had a percentage of over 200% versus the non finalists.

But when you look at how dominant Essendon of 2000 was against the best teams, you can quite easily conclude that Essendon almost got bored against the lesser teams. They could surely have amassed a percentage of around 200% if they could (and did) have a percentage of 160% against the best teams.

The last H&A game was a perfect example. Collingwood were terrible and were second-last. The Pies led by 4 goals at half time. Essendon did the minimum required and inevitably won by 19 points. Then one week later in their first final against a far superior opponent, the Bombers win by 125 points.

I’m certain Essendon could have probably beaten Collingwood by 14 goals if they were suitably motivated. Essendon out-scored Collingwood by 43 points in the second half alone, but only after they were initially uninterested in the contest in the first half where their own boredom saw them 4 goals down.

The game earlier in the season versus a very average Crows side was another. Versus this poor opponent, Essendon found themselves 4 goals down midway through the third quarter. Then, in about 40 minutes of football, they outscored the Crows by 72 points to win by 48. Once motivated, they just destroyed them, but up until halfway through the third quarter, they were just bored with the Crows.

 

[Matthew2708]

Not sure using percentage as a methodology to separate teams when draws are uniquely uneven in terms of Premiership sides from year to year and then from era to era, not to mention navigating the modern challenges of travel or relative strength of opposition, is the way to go.

Good on you for having a crack but where you lost me was ranking Richmond 2017 at 83 and Richmond 2019 at 86 when I think every Richmond supporter would say the 2019 side were stronger and overall a better side.

By way of quantifying that, 2019 Richmond finished equal top on points (3rd on percentage) and in terms of finals went to the Gabba and won away by 47 points, beat the top of the ladder Cats in a closely fought prelim and then destroyed GWS who had upset 4th placed Collingwood.

Richmond in 2017 won a game less finishing outright 3rd, despite having a slightly superior percentage to the 2019 team would have benefited from their draw given 2016 they finished outside the 8, won through their finals comfortably by 9 and 6 goal margins at home and then cleaned up the Crows by 48 points, but ostensibly beat two interstate sides on their home deck.

One of those sides was pretty clearly the best team all year (and had arguably been the best team in 2018 when they lost the prelim) while the other was very much viewed as a significant underdog and the result of the grand final an upset. Your numbers don't seem to reflect that.

We did struggle in the 1st half in 2019 though. After Round 13 - we were 7 wins and 6 losses with a % of 92. We had an average losing margin of 46.2 points including a 11 goal lost to Geelong.

In 2017 -
RD 7 - Lost to WB by 5 points at Etihad.
RD 8 - we lost after the siren by 2 points?
RD 9 - Lost to GWS by 3 points at Spotless Stadium.

Only 2 bad losses that year.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

We did struggle in the 1st half in 2019 though. After Round 13 - we were 7 wins and 6 losses with a % of 92. We had an average losing margin of 46.2 points including a 11 goal lost to Geelong.

In 2017 -
RD 7 - Lost to WB by 5 points at Etihad.
RD 8 - we lost after the siren by 2 points?
RD 9 - Lost to GWS by 3 points at Spotless Stadium.

Only 2 bad losses that year.

The reason Richmond were 7w 6l and 92% had nothing to do with how good the Premiership team was. It was because in a game like v Geelong, there were 8 of the Premiership team missing plus Rance. Amongst the missing in that particular game were Riewoldt, Rance, Lambert, Astbury, Nankervis, B Ellis, Broad, Short. And of the prime replacements at least Ross was missing. Once most of these guys returned after the bye, the team was undefeated from then on with some embarassingly high percentage, including a finals percentage of 199%.

This exposes another flaw in judging how good a *** team is by their home and away record. The team that wins the flag may not bare a great deal of resemblance to the team that accumulated the home and away record.

 

[Cyclops]

Not sure using percentage as a methodology to separate teams when draws are uniquely uneven in terms of Premiership sides from year to year and then from era to era, not to mention navigating the modern challenges of travel or relative strength of opposition, is the way to go.

Good on you for having a crack but where you lost me was ranking Richmond 2017 at 83 and Richmond 2019 at 86 when I think every Richmond supporter would say the 2019 side were stronger and overall a better side.

By way of quantifying that, 2019 Richmond finished equal top on points (3rd on percentage) and in terms of finals went to the Gabba and won away by 47 points, beat the top of the ladder Cats in a closely fought prelim and then destroyed GWS who had upset 4th placed Collingwood.

Richmond in 2017 won a game less finishing outright 3rd, despite having a slightly superior percentage to the 2019 team would have benefited from their draw given 2016 they finished outside the 8, won through their finals comfortably by 9 and 6 goal margins at home and then cleaned up the Crows by 48 points, but ostensibly beat two interstate sides on their home deck.

One of those sides was pretty clearly the best team all year (and had arguably been the best team in 2018 when they lost the prelim) while the other was very much viewed as a significant underdog and the result of the grand final an upset. Your numbers don't seem to reflect that.

The 2018 Tiger's were horrifying, we literally could not believe we best them in a prelim. Turns out a bunch if players had a nasty flu/ stomach bug.

Overall they make a great test case. How do we rank them in light of their sustained performance, ability to win against very different opposition.

There are so many aspects to consider in footy, ranking premiers on narrow criteria obscures so much of interest and worth.

 

[bzparkes]

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%.

So, at the same point of the season, Essendon had behind by 4.7% but were undefeated, unlike Carlton.

Interesting.

 

[Matthew2708]

I’m not talking about “easing up” on the lesser teams in terms of getting a big lead and then taking it easy. That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m talking about Essendon’s cumulative performance over 4-quarters in all games against the non-finalists. As you can see from the numbers there is almost no difference beteeen Essendon’s performances versus the finalists compared to the non-finalists. On the face of it, this doesn’t make sense, especially when you look at, say, Collingwood 2011 who had a percentage of over 200% versus the non finalists.

But when you look at how dominant Essendon of 2000 was against the best teams, you can quite easily conclude that Essendon almost got bored against the lesser teams. They could surely have amassed a percentage of around 200% if they could (and did) have a percentage of 160% against the best teams.

The last H&A game was a perfect example. Collingwood were terrible and were second-last. The Pies led by 4 goals at half time. Essendon did the minimum required and inevitably won by 19 points. Then one week later in their first final against a far superior opponent, the Bombers win by 125 points.

I’m certain Essendon could have probably beaten Collingwood by 14 goals if they were suitably motivated. Essendon out-scored Collingwood by 43 points in the second half alone, but only after they were initially uninterested in the contest in the first half where their own boredom saw them 4 goals down.

The game earlier in the season versus a very average Crows side was another. Versus this poor opponent, Essendon found themselves 4 goals down midway through the third quarter. Then, in about 40 minutes of football, they outscored the Crows by 72 points to win by 48. Once motivated, they just destroyed them, but up until halfway through the third quarter, they were just bored with the Crows.

Shaw (Essendon's assistant coach in 2000):
"Interestingly we were very flat for that start of that (Collingwood) game (Round 22). Which shows losing to Bulldogs did matter, as we trailed all through the first half. It was a good effort to have to work hard to win which gave us a tough lead up game to the first final (against North Melbourne)."

 

[BF Tiger]

I’m not talking about “easing up” on the lesser teams in terms of getting a big lead and then taking it easy. That’s not what I’m saying.

I’m talking about Essendon’s cumulative performance over 4-quarters in all games against the non-finalists. As you can see from the numbers there is almost no difference beteeen Essendon’s performances versus the finalists compared to the non-finalists. On the face of it, this doesn’t make sense, especially when you look at, say, Collingwood 2011 who had a percentage of over 200% versus the non finalists.

But when you look at how dominant Essendon of 2000 was against the best teams, you can quite easily conclude that Essendon almost got bored against the lesser teams. They could surely have amassed a percentage of around 200% if they could (and did) have a percentage of 160% against the best teams.

The last H&A game was a perfect example. Collingwood were terrible and were second-last. The Pies led by 4 goals at half time. Essendon did the minimum required and inevitably won by 19 points. Then one week later in their first final against a far superior opponent, the Bombers win by 125 points.

I’m certain Essendon could have probably beaten Collingwood by 14 goals if they were suitably motivated. Essendon out-scored Collingwood by 43 points in the second half alone, but only after they were initially uninterested in the contest in the first half where their own boredom saw them 4 goals down.

The game earlier in the season versus a very average Crows side was another. Versus this poor opponent, Essendon found themselves 4 goals down midway through the third quarter. Then, in about 40 minutes of football, they outscored the Crows by 72 points to win by 48. Once motivated, they just destroyed them, but up until halfway through the third quarter, they were just bored with the Crows.

This takes the cake. Apparently Essendon were so good they just thought they'd show up after half-time in some games, just let the opposition have a kick for 2-1/2 quarters, couldn't be bothered in some first halves and were bored in other first halves.

This from a team who choked a prelim the year before.

 

[Cleansweep17]

I hear a lot about the bombers 2000 and of course their record speaks for itself.

But I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody in my life talk about the Dees 2000 who they played against in the GF.

Were they a good team? Was Gary Lyon their best player?

 

[Dan26]

This takes the cake. Apparently Essendon were so good they just thought they'd show up after half-time in some games, just let the opposition have a kick for 2-1/2 quarters, couldn't be bothered in some first halves and were bored in other first halves.

That’s an exaggeration of the truth. Of course they turned to most games. They’re the only team in history to win 24 matches for Christ’s sake. What’s interesting, as I’ve stated earlier is that the Bombers record against the finalists (160%) was so off the chart, it’s kind of ridiculous. No other team even comes close. Yet their record against the non finalists (167%) was all but identical.

Compare that to the Pies in 2011 who had a record versus the finalists of 117% and a record versus the non-finalists of over 200%!

Essendon could have clearly destroyed some of those non-finalists by bigger margins if they really wanted to. That much is obvious. The closeness in percentage between Essendon’s performances against the finalists and non finalists leaves no other conclusion to be drawn.

To have a percentage versus the other 7 finalists of 160% is so astonishing, it’s hard to believe it’s even possible if you look at modern football history. It’s really a stat that shouldn’t be achievable. It’s a bit like test cricketer averaging 75. It’s like three standard deviations outside the mean.

 

[terrybull]

 

[Do the Dew]

The 2018 Tiger's were horrifying, we literally could not believe we best them in a prelim. Turns out a bunch if players had a nasty flu/ stomach bug.

Overall they make a great test case. How do we rank them in light of their sustained performance, ability to win against very different opposition.

There are so many aspects to consider in footy, ranking premiers on narrow criteria obscures so much of interest and worth.

I miss those days/years. There was a game in 2018 against Brisbane in about Rd 5 where they hadn't kicked a goal to almost 3/4 time. Your midfield killed us in that prelim but we were flagging late in the year. We're garbage now but wouldn't change a thing.

 

[BF Tiger]

That’s an exaggeration of the truth. Of course they turned to most games. They’re the only team in history to win 24 matches for Christ’s sake. What’s interesting, as I’ve stated earlier is that the Bombers record against the finalists (160%) was so off the chart, it’s kind of ridiculous. No other team even comes close. Yet their record against the non finalists (167%) was all but identical.

Compare that to the Pies in 2011 who had a record versus the finalists of 117% and a record versus the non-finalists of over 200%!

Essendon could have clearly destroyed some of those non-finalists by bigger margins if they really wanted to. That much is obvious. The closeness in percentage between Essendon’s performances against the finalists and non finalists leaves no other conclusion to be drawn.

To have a percentage versus the other 7 finalists of 160% is so astonishing, it’s hard to believe it’s even possible if you look at modern football history. It’s really a stat that shouldn’t be achievable. It’s a bit like test cricketer averaging 75. It’s like three standard deviations outside the mean.

It's no exaggeration. You've literally stated that at times Essendon were bored and uninterested.

I think it's quite simplistic to just state that a % of 160 v finalists means they could have achieved a % of 200 against everyone else if they wanted to. I'd suggest that what was actually the case was that Essendon were a strong team while the rest of the competition had an evenness to it. Four teams finished on 12 wins. Second last finished with 7 wins and a % of 86. Fourth place had a % of 106 and fifth place had a % of 97. The wooden spooners had a % of 70, which I imagine is a better % for a team finishing last.

 

[sobrave]

That’s an exaggeration of the truth. Of course they turned to most games. They’re the only team in history to win 24 matches for Christ’s sake. What’s interesting, as I’ve stated earlier is that the Bombers record against the finalists (160%) was so off the chart, it’s kind of ridiculous. No other team even comes close. Yet their record against the non finalists (167%) was all but identical.

Compare that to the Pies in 2011 who had a record versus the finalists of 117% and a record versus the non-finalists of over 200%!

Essendon could have clearly destroyed some of those non-finalists by bigger margins if they really wanted to. That much is obvious. The closeness in percentage between Essendon’s performances against the finalists and non finalists leaves no other conclusion to be drawn.

To have a percentage versus the other 7 finalists of 160% is so astonishing, it’s hard to believe it’s even possible if you look at modern football history. It’s really a stat that shouldn’t be achievable. It’s a bit like test cricketer averaging 75. It’s like three standard deviations outside the mean.

Sounds like they were on something..