Three years at the top - how many Premierships is par?

[Beau_Waters for PM]

1 is par.
2 is benchmark
3 is a damn good effort
....but again it all comes down to form, injury, suspension going into finals...anything can happen as we well know on that last Saturday in September.

How do you distinguish par and benchmark? I would say that par = 'normal' = benchmark.

I think it is a little like Golf, Like the length of the hole, Par depends on how many good sides are around you.

I think that's a good comment.

If a club only wins 1 premiership in a three year period where it is far and away the best team then they rightly ought to feel pretty disappointed. Its like using four strokes on a par-3. Sure, on a 'normal' (par-4) hole its a fair achievement. But on a par-3 its a bogey.

However, if a club is the best team in a three year period where the top 4 is quite competitive, then I would say only winning one flag is not so bad. Its like parring a par-5 hole. Could have done worse.

 

[lionbear]

If a club only wins 1 premiership in a three year period where it is far and away the best team then they rightly ought to feel pretty disappointed. Its like using four strokes on a par-3. Sure, on a 'normal' (par-4) hole its a fair achievement. But on a par-3 its a bogey.

I would say Essendon 99 to 01, 1 Flag below Par.
Sydney 04 to 06, 1 Flag Par.

This is open for debate I don't think there is a clear cut answer.

 

[Dan26]

I would say Essendon 99 to 01, 1 Flag below Par.

Why do people keep saying that? Are they stupid?

Did I miss something? Did Essendon dominate 1999 and 2001 to the extent that they were far and away the best? NO

In fact, the team with best win-loss record in 1999 (North at 20-5) won the flag. Essendon went 19-5. In 2001, the team with the best win loss record (Brisbane at 20-5) won the flag. Essendon went 19-6.

In 1999 and 2001 Essendon was a flag contender along with 2-3 other sides in those seasons.

Because Essendon was so damn good in 2000, people think (wrongly) that they were just as good in the other two years. Since when does Essendon being so good in 2000 mean that they should win a flag in the other seasons?????????????? Is that the most stupid logic ever?

Admittedly the 1999 Prelim was an individual match the Bombers should have won, but if you look at that season a whole (rather than looking at one game), the Bombers did not dominate the year. One team (North) had a better win-loss record and Brisbane had a percentage 20% higher than Essendon in that year.

Essendon dominated one year - 2000 - and won the flag that year. They were a contender (along with 2-3 other sides) in the other two years and the 25-33%% chance of winning the flag in those years (as a rough estimate when you are one of 3-4 sides who are contenders) didn't fall the Bombers way.