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..

 

[Fadge]

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.

You're trying to argue that a team who were a Max Gawn kick on the final siren of the final home and away game away from finishing 4th at the end of the home and away season were better that the Essendon 2000 team?

You really need to do yourself a favour and put away the stats sheets and actually watch some football.

 

[Fadge]

For what its worth. It's hard to believe that the two highest rated teams 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.

View attachment 2129557

I didn't realise 1783 was a higher number than 1788, whatever an 'Elo Rating' is...

 

[Fadge]

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?

Go ahead and start a thread with this documented rationale, analysis and your conclusions, and let's see what people think of it...

 

[Fadge]

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.

2000 looked like a weak year on paper, because Essendon were so good that they separated themselves from the competition by so much.

But using Meteoric Rise's rationale of seeing what other teams did in seasons 'around' the 2000 premiership season, the competition included:
1. North Melbourne - the reigning premiers who had played in the previous 7 Preliminary Finals, who Essendon beat in the Preliminary Final by 120 points.
2. Brisbane - a team who went on to win the following three premierships, and to this day are regarded by many as the best team since the great Hawthorn team of the 1980's.
3. Carlton - a team who won 13 consecutive games during the season.

And yet there was still another team better than the above 3 who qualified to play (and be belted by) Essendon in that year's Grand Final....

 

[Fadge]

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.

Yep.

For those who watched Essendon play in 2000 - this was the distinct pattern.

They would obliterate the opposition in a quarter or so of dominant football. Whether that was the first, second, third or fourth quarters was merely a footnote. It was a matter of when, not if.

Meteoric Rise - a question for you...

You have previously stated there was a period of time that you were living overseas and saw little to no football. Did you actually see much or any of the 2000 season?

 

[year of the cat]

2000 looked like a weak year on paper, because Essendon were so good that they separated themselves from the competition by so much.

But using Meteoric Rise's rationale of seeing what other teams did in seasons 'around' the 2000 premiership season, the competition included:
1. North Melbourne - the reigning premiers who had played in the previous 7 Preliminary Finals, who Essendon beat in the Preliminary Final by 120 points.
2. Brisbane - a team who went on to win the following three premierships, and to this day are regarded by many as the best team since the great Hawthorn team of the 1980's.
3. Carlton - a team who won 13 consecutive games during the season.

And yet there was still another team better than the above 3 who qualified to play (and be belted by) Essendon in that year's Grand Final....

That’s one way of looking at it. North and Carl were both on the wane by 2000. Bris hadn’t yet emerged. An analogy would be they were the Lleyton Hewitt of the AFL. He had a couple of good years between Sampras and Agassi’s decline and before Federer and Nadal arrived.

 

[Fadge]

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.

Oh.

So we should now assess how a team 'would have performed if they had their best players available for every game of the season'?

 

[Fadge]

That’s one way of looking at it. North and Carl were both on the wane by 2000. Bris hadn’t yet emerged. An analogy would be they were the Lleyton Hewitt of the AFL. He had a couple of good years between Sampras and Agassi’s decline and before Federer and Nadal arrived.

Brisbane played in a Preliminary Final in 1999, and had 95% of their 3peat team.

Carlton made a surprise Grand Final appearance in 1999 and were tracking as clear second favourites for the premiership before Kouta did his knee.

As I said, there were some very good teams in 2000 who were made to look second rate because of how dominant Essendon were.

 

[year of the cat]

Brisbane played in a Preliminary Final in 1999, and had 95% of their 3peat team.

Carlton made a surprise Grand Final appearance in 1999 and were tracking as clear second favourites for the premiership before Kouta did his knee.

As I said, there were some very good teams in 2000 who were made to look second rate because of how dominant Essendon were.

Not saying that Essendon weren’t a great team that year. They were absolutely dominant. But you go through the names in that team now and aside from Hird, Lloyd, Mercuri and Fletcher they aren’t exactly a team of champions. Dont compare to the teams of Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn later on.

I just think they were a very good (not great) team that were able to have one dominant season off the back of a weak year. That’s all.

 

[Fadge]

Not saying that Essendon weren’t a great team that year. They were absolutely dominant. But you go through the names in that team now and aside from Hird, Lloyd, Mercuri and Fletcher they aren’t exactly a team of champions. Dont compare to the teams of Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn later on.

I just think they were a very good (not great) team that were able to have one dominant season off the back of a weak year. That’s all.

Except they were good enough to perform well enough to be favourites for the 1999 premiership prior to their Elimination Final loss, and favourites for the 2001 premiership for the entire season, including before the bounce of the ball on Grand Final Day.

Brisbane were only premiership favourites in 2002 during their 3peat, for example.(though were favourites on Grand Final Day when they lost in 2004).

 

[year of the cat]

Except they were good enough to perform well enough to be favourites for the 1999 premiership prior to their Elimination Final loss, and favourites for the 2001 premiership for the entire season, including before the bounce of the ball on Grand Final Day.

Brisbane were only premiership favourites in 2002 during their 3peat, for example.(though were favourites on Grand Final Day when they lost in 2004).

But they didn’t get the job done in those years which confirms my point.

I know Dan is ranking these years in isolation but his bias is fairly self evident. When he posts about individual games in that season where “they eased up” then fair dinkum….