The worst team to win a premiership

[On the bench]

Just seeing what do u think is the worst team in a year that has gone through and won the premiership in that year

Collingwood 1990!

 

[AndyD]

1.No the team of 1990 was probably worse.
2.The maggots of 06 proved that at least once a year every dog of a team has its day.
3. The Bloods kicked the game away with atrocious kicking (bad football) with two goals from 14 shots by half time. We should have been four goals ahead by half-time.
4. I know numeracy is as challenging as literacy but the Bloods had 27 scoring shots to 25. If thats an easy win hate to see a close one.
3. Lonie shaded the great man on the night. The both kicked two goals and Lonie had about five more possessions.
4. If you are going to insult a great footballer at least be accurate - he must be a double imposter. He's won two brownlows with more to possibly to come

What is this "Bloods" you talk about? Are you talking about the team that packed it's bags and left their history behind in 1982? Or are you talking about the "Swans", a team that has had AFL support from day one, a team that got lucky last year when the Eagles pooped the bed on GF day, playing a hybrid game of football and keepings off. Face facts, the Bloods are dead.

 

[Footylover1]

What is this "Bloods" you talk about? Are you talking about the team that packed it's bags and left their history behind in 1982? Or are you talking about the "Swans", a team that has had AFL support from day one, a team that got lucky last year when the Eagles pooped the bed on GF day, playing a hybrid game of football and keepings off. Face facts, the Bloods are dead.

I hope you say that The Shinboners are dead as well because if you don't then you're a hypocrite. The Bloods is a reference to the South Melbourne days. So back off the Bloods. At least we have seen our team win a premiership, have you?

 

[Hap Hapablap]

Narr you don't sound biased. You just sound like a tug merchant repeating the same old cliches. By the way if the worst team ever to win a GF gets within a point of your team of egocentrics, drunks and bet wetters, playing the same brand of football with virtually the same side, the following season, does that make the weavils the second worst side to win a premiership. (Thinking music please)

bravo. out of everyone you gotta choose me. ha we may have the off field issues but you didnt hear the entire land including the director of the AFL screaming we play ugly footy.

 

[Footylover1]

bravo. out of everyone you gotta choose me. ha we may have the off field issues but you didnt hear the entire land including the director of the AFL screaming we play ugly footy.

Andrew Demetriou was wrong about our so-called ugly style of footy. God knows it's not the only time he has been wrong in his reign.

 

[jacko57]

Anyone can be selective with statstics from "portions" of the season.

The reality is that they had a percentage of 115% and had the worst defence of the top 10 teams on the ladder.

Were they a very good team? Yes.

Were they as good as most of the other recent premiership teams? Of course not. As I said, North got a littel worse each year from 1996 onwards until they eventually dropped out of the 8 in 2001. In 2000, they were jsut hanging on. In 1999, they were good, but not as good as 1998, or 1997 (if Carey hadn't been injured) and of course they were miles behind their 1996 outfit, who I rate VERY highly.

The best way to know how good a team is is to watch them play, not quote "portions" of the season in statistical form, lol.

As a North fan, I'd say that's a fair call.

 

[steviewonder36]

I know Collingwood we're pretty dominate but it was unbearable living back then when they won

Crap, you were probably like 5 years old.

Pretty much sums up this thread, majority of you probably only been on this planet 20 years or so at best.

 

[saggers]

Anyone can be selective with statstics from "portions" of the season.

The reality is that they had a percentage of 115% and had the worst defence of the top 10 teams on the ladder.

Were they a very good team? Yes.

Were they as good as most of the other recent premiership teams? Of course not. As I said, North got a littel worse each year from 1996 onwards until they eventually dropped out of the 8 in 2001. In 2000, they were jsut hanging on. In 1999, they were good, but not as good as 1998, or 1997 (if Carey hadn't been injured) and of course they were miles behind their 1996 outfit, who I rate VERY highly.

The best way to know how good a team is is to watch them play, not quote "portions" of the season in statistical form, lol.

the last 21 of 25 games would be a fair "portion" i'd say. and as for watching them play, is watching them every week enough?

i agree that the 99 team was not as good as the 98 or 96 teams but it had the 97 team well and truly covered, so it was hardly a drop off each year. the 97 team finished 7th after the home and away and the 98 team was 1st, the 99 was 2nd.

there's no point arguing because i can recall your extensive list of ranking every premiership team of all time and your bias against the roos was obvious. you place far too much emphasis on %, the roos were never a team that had a massive % due to the way they played through that era, high scoring contests were common and they were susceptible to the odd thrashing. beating a lower team by huge margins to boost % doesn't always mean that team is the best. the geelong teams of the early 90's proved that.

and regarding the similar scoring shots from the 99 GF, wouldn't you say that is being selective? 1 stat from 1 game that is very misleading. scoring shots aren't a reliable indicator of the balance of a game, due to rushed behinds and shots at goal from wide out due to not being able to create any play through the middle of the ground.

it's conventient to base so much of your rankings on stats but then to dismiss the most important one, wins. 20 wins, 5 losses is not the record of the 2nd worst premier of the last 15 years.

 

[Footylover1]

Crap, you were probably like 5 years old.

Pretty much sums up this thread, majority of you probably only been on this planet 20 years or so at best.

I was 15 at the time lol

 

[jacko57]

you place far too much emphasis on %, the roos were never a team that had a massive % due to the way they played through that era, high scoring contests were common and they were susceptible to the odd thrashing. beating a lower team by huge margins to boost % doesn't always mean that team is the best. the geelong teams of the early 90's proved that.

From around 96 on, North tended to do just enough to win the game, without chasing the big winning margins. Whether it was arrogance or complacency, I'm not sure...............It usually worked for them, but gee I wish they'd been 10+ goals up at half-time in the 98 GF !!

 

[HorseHead]

Collingwood 1990!

There's obviously no actual thought put into these answers, just a knee-jerk anti-Collingwood reaction.

Name me another premiership team that won the last three finals matches in their premiership season by eight or more goals, while at the same time not conceding a single goal to the opposition in the final quarter of any of those games.

http://afl.allthestats.com/statistics/rdscores.php?rdfm=25&yrfm=1990

People seem to wilfully forget (or perhaps aren't old enough to remember) that we actually had a pretty good defense that season. The Collingwood side of 1990 are nowhere near the "worst" team to win a premiership.

 

[tazhawk]

Collingwood 1990 easily the worst team to win a AFL flag.

Tony Shaw is on record as saying they all got down on their knees and prayed to the good lord when the Hawks were out of the race.

From memory the Hawks thumped them by 80 odd points a few weeks before the finals and without a doubt the Hawks were a far better team than Collingwood in 1990.

 

[Footylover1]

Crap, you were probably like 5 years old.

Pretty much sums up this thread, majority of you probably only been on this planet 20 years or so at best.

I am 31 years old so do the math will ya! It was un bloody bearable.

 

[plugger47]

Andrew Demetriou was wrong about our so-called ugly style of footy. God knows it's not the only time he has been wrong in his reign.

1. This topic was supposed to be "worst" team to win a GF. Worst means - not good in any manner or degree or poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient; or inadequate or below standard. You confuse standard with "style". If standard was the same as style or ugliness Stephen Hawking's work would be really dumb. Get the difference?
2. To fall back on Andy D is always a sign of real desperation. Any CEO that rubbishes publicly the codes one team in the most competative football market in the world and the biggest in Australia, and then has that team win comp, deserves to be and should have been told to pick up his pencil case and get out of the organization. You obviously have forgotten the grovelling embarassing apology at the GF. we haven't. Anyway if anyone has worked all his life dedicated to being ugly its Andy D. Talking about ugly - the player you sponsor was not only tragically born ugly but he plays a pretty defensive unattractive style of footy.
3. Instead of making pig ignorant gratutious comments about a successful team's playing style Andy D should be focusing his attention on the damage to AFL's image coming from weaviland with the usual disgraceful undisciplined assaults, drunkeness and loutish behaviour. (Nup too gutless)
4. Some weavil supporters just don't get it. If the Bloods are the worst team to win a GF doesn't it follow by logical deduction that your mob was slightly worse than worst ('05) and ever so slightly better than the worst of all time ('06)???

 

[plugger47]

Historically, the Fitzroy team of 1916 was the worst. They finished last in a 4-team comp, and then won the finals series to take the flag.

If you look at more recent times, the two Adelaide sides of 1997 and 1998 are underrated. People look at them as "not that good" but really, their 13-9 win-loss record in both seasons did not reflect their ability. They were better than that. They had the best defnece in the AFL in both seasons, and more pertinantly, the best percentage both years. They weren't one of the best flag teams ever, but they certainly weren't the worst.

In terms of the weakest in modern times, two stand out to me:

2005 Sydney : It's always easy to justify that the evential flag winner was the best team of the year, but realistically Sydeny was very luck 18 months ago. Aside from not being a particularly dominant team, anyway, and having a lucky injury run, they won two of their three finals by less than a goal, and did not display the dominant explosive charachteristics that premiership sides usually have.

Kangaroos 1999 : It's an unusual situation when a flag team finishes the H&A with a 17-5 record, and yet they are not a particularly dominant team (comapred to what the club was in 1996, 1997, and 1998.) The win-loss record certainly did not reflect their dominance. The Kangaroos had the weakest defence in the top-8 and unbelievably the weakest defence of the top TEN.

The thing about the Kangas, was that they were at their best in 1996 and then gradully got a little bit weaker each year. In 1997, Carey did his shoulder and missed half the season (they finished 12-10) but if he was fit they would have been your typical 15-16 win contender like in 1996. Then in 1998, they were still good, but not quite as good as 1996 - just not as dominant. And then in 1999 they were STILL good, but, once again, not quite as good as 1998. Maybe just that 5% worse. And in 2000, they once again finished in the top 4 but they were that lttle bit worse again. They were just hanging on in 2000.

So I felt from 1996 to 2000 they gradually were getting a little bit worse each year, whislt still remaining a contender. Their Grand Final performance against Carlton where the Blues were a 50-50 also ran, and both teams had 29 scoring shots each was not an exeptional peformance by the 'Roos, and I must admit it was frustraing as an Essendon fan watching them knowing we would have been strong, strong favourites had we played them. But that's besides the point.

I lean towards Sydney in 2005 as being the weakest (of modern times), with the Kangaroos of 1999 being marginally better than them. VERY glad both of them beat their respective opponents though.

Other teams that weren't "that" good (by premiership standards) were Essendon of 1993 and West Coast of 2006.

Things have moved on since the equalisation of the competition by the draft salary cap controls. The whole comp is much more even so its probably the case that we will tend to see closer finals matches, although will always have walkovers, particularly if collinwood makes it this season. Most people think this is a good thing. A lot of the stuff on this site is nostalgia for the days of a few rich clubs dominating the many. The days of really dominant clubs such as Carlton in 70's and 80's are over. Although they tried to keep it going under Pigsarse Jack with the rort. Its all over baby blue

 

[Beckers]

Collingwood 1990 easily the worst team to win a AFL flag.

Tony Shaw is on record as saying they all got down on their knees and prayed to the good lord when the Hawks were out of the race.

From memory the Hawks thumped them by 80 odd points a few weeks before the finals and without a doubt the Hawks were a far better team than Collingwood in 1990.

Imagine the back-to-back-to-back-to-back (88,89,90,91) that could have been had the Hawks taken the 1990 flag

For mine the worst side to win a premiership is EASILY Sydney in 2005! Its common in lower leagues to put a group of scrubbers out and bring the opposition down to your level, but who ever thought it could happen in the AFL?

 

[peechers]

Imagine the back-to-back-to-back-to-back (88,89,90,91) that could have been had the Hawks taken the 1990 flag

For mine the worst side to win a premiership is EASILY Sydney in 2005! Its common in lower leagues to put a group of scrubbers out and bring the opposition down to your level, but who ever thought it could happen in the AFL?

Yep, that era Hawks was an awesome team.

 

[Kaitsey]

everyone is under rating sydney i feel. seriously they are so much better than everyone thinks. they make all your teams look like cr@p.

a forward line consisting of hall, oloughlin, okeefe, davis and others cant be overlooked.

their midfield has some great stoppers and some good attacking players like adam goodes and jude bolton.

and obviously their backline is very tight because of their style of play, but they still win around 75% of their matches so i wouldnt be so quick to disregard how good these guys are.

 

[Footylover1]

everyone is under rating sydney i feel. seriously they are so much better than everyone thinks. they make all your teams look like cr@p.

a forward line consisting of hall, oloughlin, okeefe, davis and others cant be overlooked.

their midfield has some great stoppers and some good attacking players like adam goodes and jude bolton.

and obviously their backline is very tight because of their style of play, but they still win around 75% of their matches so i wouldnt be so quick to disregard how good these guys are.

Well said

 

[emuboy]

everyone is under rating sydney i feel. seriously they are so much better than everyone thinks. they make all your teams look like cr@p.

a forward line consisting of hall, oloughlin, okeefe, davis and others cant be overlooked.

their midfield has some great stoppers and some good attacking players like adam goodes and jude bolton.

and obviously their backline is very tight because of their style of play, but they still win around 75% of their matches so i wouldnt be so quick to disregard how good these guys are.

I agree too. The Swans always were going to be a premiership contenders in 2005, and the West Coast Eagles are a very good team. It's not as though the Swans beat a team that had struggled into the finals at seventh and fluked a Grand Final appearance. Once the Swans had the lead in the last quarter of that game, they were never going to let the Eagles get back in front.

 

[magilla]

Collingwood 1990 easily the worst team to win a AFL flag.

Tony Shaw is on record as saying they all got down on their knees and prayed to the good lord when the Hawks were out of the race.

From memory the Hawks thumped them by 80 odd points a few weeks before the finals and without a doubt the Hawks were a far better team than Collingwood in 1990.

delusional about the future and delusional about the past as well

but the hawks lost both games to essendon by ten goals plus that year. and collingwood pumped essendon by ten goals or so in both finals, don't blame us because you could'nt beat melbourne and were bundled out in the first final. and for the record.
collingwood finished 2nd 16-6
hawthorn 5th 14-8

so in reality hawks were'nt the better team, technically essendon was and we pumped them in both finals including the grand final.

 

[thylacine60]

Imagine the back-to-back-to-back-to-back (88,89,90,91) that could have been had the Hawks taken the 1990 flag

OT but it would have been as quality as 1979-1982 had Carlton not imploded off field in 1980.

 

[Dan26]

the last 21 of 25 games would be a fair "portion" i'd say. and as for watching them play, is watching them every week enough?

I don't think the win-loss record tells the story in this case. Over the course of the 6 month season, they had a percentage of 115% (incredibly low by premiership standards. Almost inconceivably low) and the worst defence of the top ten teams on the ladder. Take a look at the "points against" if you dont believe me.

Now of course they were still a very good team - I just don't rate them anywhere near as highly as most other premiership teams. I think their excellent win-loss record disguised some deficiencies.

.

i agree that the 99 team was not as good as the 98 or 96 teams but it had the 97 team well and truly covered, so it was hardly a drop off each year. the 97 team finished 7th after the home and away and the 98 team was 1st, the 99 was 2nd.

In 1997, Carey was out for half the season, remember. If he was fit, the Kangas in 1997 would have been similar to where they were in 1996 - maybe a little bit worse (remembering, that in my opinion, they seemed to get about 5% worse each year). Then in 1998, I reckon they went back a bit again (rememebring that North "would" have done better in '97 if Carey had been there.) North were good in '98 but they weren't as destructive as they were in '96. Then in '99 they went back again in quality, and then again in 2000. Their percentage actually got worse every year from 1996 to 2001 (with the exception of 1997 when the man was injured.)..... that tells you something.

there's no point arguing because i can recall your extensive list of ranking every premiership team of all time and your bias against the roos was obvious.

I have no bias against the "Roos. I like the Kangaroos. I rate their 1996 sde highly - does that mean I am biased in favour of them? I don't rate Essendon's 1993 side that highly - does that mean I am biased against Essendon? Of course not.

I just happen to think that North's 1999 side wasn't "that" good (by flag standards) and that they were just hanging on, gradually getting that little bit worse each year from 1996 onwards. The fact they conceded more points than any other team in the top 8 (and conceded more than two teams outside the 8) really tells a story

I think North fans know this and they like it. It makes that '99 premiership all the sweeter, and they are laughing all the way to the bank. It's always better winning one when you know you're not "that" good. I enjoyed 1993 more than 2000 for instance.

 

[plugger47]

What is this "Bloods" you talk about? Are you talking about the team that packed it's bags and left their history behind in 1982? Or are you talking about the "Swans", a team that has had AFL support from day one, a team that got lucky last year when the Eagles pooped the bed on GF day, playing a hybrid game of football and keepings off. Face facts, the Bloods are dead.

What will your hopeless mob be called after the move to Darwin, western Sydney, Werribee or wherever else they are packed off to? Come to think of it dogs probably fits everywhere. A two city team lives and some of us call it the Bloods (including the players). Face facts a nine team city in a national comp. isn't viable in the future. And a club that hasn't won a flag since the election of Pig Iron Bob Menzies ain't got no future eking out an existence in Melbourne's dead west rust belt

 

[hoogs]

Fremantle 2007 to 2012