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

[Papa G]

Gut feel tells me Port underperformed, Essendon got ahead of themselves and lost a GF they should have won, and Brisbane were a very very good side that would have won in 04 without injuries.

You can't have it both ways. If Brisbane were so good then how could have Port underperformed? Going by that reasoning Port shouldn't have won any Grand Finals at all as Brisbane were so much better. Were Brisbane weaker in 02/03? - I'd say they were actually better. If Port's All Australian Ruck/rover combination of Primus and Francou not go down in 03 would they have been a better side than Brisabane?

If in your opinion Brisbane (bar injuries - always a great analysis in hindsight) were so much better than Port and should have won in 04 how could Port have under achieved?

 

[HODGE2SEWELL]

lol
h

 

[SA HAWK]

Things change fast in football. People thought the same about WCE 2 years ago

West coast had a good midfield and that was about it. Hawthorn's team is far superior to west coasts.

 

[Hawkk]

To an extent I think its more difficult to replicate the dominance Geelong and Melbourne have achieved during the regular season and then finish the season off with a flag

A side like Geelong - who have won runaway back to back to minor premiers, has been the standout benchmark side for almost 2 seasons and in spite of losing this year will probably move into next year as the heavy favourite as well, the same burden of expectation that brought the Essendon sides of 1999-2001 down.

Where Brisbane excelled was through peaking in towards the finals and having the likes of Essendon, Port Adelaide and Collingwood, all taking away some of the pressure and attention from other clubs on Brisbane to perform.

I have no doubt the Hawks played the underdog and low expectation cards beautifully this season, whether they can successfully handle the transition from hunter to huntered over the next 12-18 months is yet to be seen

 

[Hollow Knight]

(remember Brisbane didn't finish top once during their threepeat and only went into one of their winning Grand Finals as favourites);

Actually we were bookies favorites in both 2001 and 2002.

We'd won 15 games straight leading up to the 2001 GF.

 

[andrewmac]

You can't have it both ways. If Brisbane were so good then how could have Port underperformed? Going by that reasoning Port shouldn't have won any Grand Finals at all as Brisbane were so much better. Were Brisbane weaker in 02/03? - I'd say they were actually better. If Port's All Australian Ruck/rover combination of Primus and Francou not go down in 03 would they have been a better side than Brisabane?

If in your opinion Brisbane (bar injuries - always a great analysis in hindsight) were so much better than Port and should have won in 04 how could Port have under achieved?

Fair point, i agree with your logic, Port were nearly good enough in 02 and 03, but not quite, and in 04 they got lucky meeting Brisbane with injuries.

 

[PowerForGood]

Interesting thread - the maths are slightly out as you can't just add the numbers together, so I'll have a go.

Assuming the OP probabilities of winning the flag are correct.
0 premierships = 0.56 * 3 = 17.6%
1 premiership = (0.56 * 2 + 0.44 * 1) * 3 = 41.4%
2 premierships = (0.56 * 1 + 0.44 * 2) * 3 = 32.5%
3 premierships = 0.44 * 3 = 8.5%

So 1 premiership is the most likely, but 2 premierships are not as unlikely as might be thought.

I'll have another go later on, looking at the percentage chance of winning at each stage of the finals and turning that into a percentage chance of winning premierships from each position.

NB: My preliminary analysis shows some bad news for Richmond fans, the percentage chance of winning a flag from 9th is approximately 0%.

 

[Coach Bombay]

seems all correct to me but to tell you the truth

numbers mean nothing anything can happen in football at anytime at anywhere

sure most of the time numbers work but most of those numbers and percentages are aslo just common sense

and if numbers were true you would be saying hawks ar most likey to not win another premiership until they fall down then rise again

and with buddy (21) roughy (21) hodge (24) and most of our players under 25 i really cant see hawks not getting the medal again in the next 5 years

I thought numbers meant nothing?

 

[malph]

Fair point, i agree with your logic, Port were nearly good enough in 02 and 03, but not quite, and in 04 they got lucky meeting Brisbane with injuries.

Did Port "get lucky" because they had the entire season to get used to playing without their captain and best midfielder?

After three years on top, one flag is certainly par - but 'par' doesn't mean achieving what you should, either. Tiger Woods hitting par is an under-achievement, just as a three-time minor premier winning one flag is an under-achievement.

One flag? Disappointing, yes. Under-achievement, yes. Par, yes.

 

[tugga]

Depends on what an individual's version of success is.
Look at Melbourne Storm. Three consecutive minor premierships and threee consecutive grand final appearances with one premiership to show for it.
Some would call it underachieving, some would call it a sustained successful 'era'.

 

[Smyth94]

Actually we were bookies favorites in both 2001 and 2002.

We'd won 15 games straight leading up to the 2001 GF.

I reckon thats the biggest myth in footy, honestly.

Everyone assumes Essendon were odds on favourite to beat the Lions but it was the complete opposite.

 

[chrismew]

When comparing premiership teams, I think a lot depends on the quality of your list, and who your opposition was.

Brisbane (2001,02,03) are arguably the best team since the Hawthorn teams of the '80s to win flags, so are Port Adelaide underachievers because they only won 1 flag during the Brisbane era?

Additionally, IMO due to their respective lists you can argue that Collingwood and Sydney were very lucky to win 1 premiership, let alone be good enough to form a dynasty.

Having said that, due to the quality and age of their list, I would be disappointed as an Hawthorn supporter, if the Hawks didn't win another flag in the next 5yrs, and I think Geelong supporters would feel the same, due to the depth and quality of their side.

 

[Salopek31]

I reckon thats the biggest myth in footy, honestly.

Everyone assumes Essendon were odds on favourite to beat the Lions but it was the complete opposite.

Actually for one reason or another Brisbane's whole glory era seems to be littered with common misconceptions.

Myth 1: Brisbane upset Essendon to win the 2001 GF.
Fact 1: Brisbane had won 15 games on the trot prior to the GF including the famous 'if it bleeds, we can kill it' win against Essendon.

Myth 2: Brisbane were at their peak in 2003.
Fact 2: Brisbane had a 14-1-7 record in the home and away season placing them in 3rd but only 6 points ahead of the 8th placed Essendon. They proceeded to lose their first final against Collingwood at the MCG only to win their next 3 finals including the massive GF win over Collingwood (which is where the myth comes from) to take the flag.

Myth 3: Brisbane were old, injured and a shadow of their former selves in 2004.
Fact 3: Brisbane were more or less as strong as ever in 2004 being premiership favourite throughout the second half of the season and coming close to winning the minor premiership for the first time. Heading into the GF they were red hot favourite to complete the four-peat, fielded a younger side than Port, and had all of their best players out on the park (unlike Port who were missing their best ruckman and best midfielder).

 

[Big John]

bit hard to turn footy into mathematics i reckon....

Gut feel tells me Port underperformed, Essendon got ahead of themselves and lost a GF they should have won, and Brisbane were a very very good side that would have won in 04 without injuries.

West Coast were an awesome side that would still be wining premierships if the AFL had allowed them to continue cheating.

Another way to look at it is that with the current finals set up, the top 2 have equal chance to win, and i reckon in the last 15 years i think Adelaide 97-98 and 1 of Brisbanes were from 3rd or 4th and Sydneys might also have been from 3rd or 4th.

Overall if you don't finish 1 or 2, the finals are only there for big crowds and big revenue for the AFL.... but i still go and love it

As has been mentioned we lost to a pretty good side that say. The one that hurts for the bombers is when we did actually get ahead of ourselves and lost a prelim we should have won.

 

[Marsup]

You can't have it both ways. If Brisbane were so good then how could have Port underperformed? Going by that reasoning Port shouldn't have won any Grand Finals at all as Brisbane were so much better. Were Brisbane weaker in 02/03? - I'd say they were actually better. If Port's All Australian Ruck/rover combination of Primus and Francou not go down in 03 would they have been a better side than Brisabane?

If in your opinion Brisbane (bar injuries - always a great analysis in hindsight) were so much better than Port and should have won in 04 how could Port have under achieved?

I would say Port Adelaide under achieved on the Sole Basis that of the 3 years they lead after H&A (2002,2003 & 2004) they only made 1 Grand Final which they did manage to win.
If I also remember correctly they finished 3rd in 2001 and again failed to make the Prelim Final.
I would say 1 Grand Final out of 4 years in the top 4 is well and truly under achieved!

 

[Dan26]

The way I look at is, on average there are, say three or four genuine flag contenders in any given year.

This year there were three, but usually there is 4, or so, right?

If you are the best team in any given season, you still have to go through a knockout Prelminary Final and a knockout Grand Final.

Now, if you are the best team, you still have to play two pretty good teams in the PF and GF, so your chanes of winning both might be around 60%. Remembering that if you are the best team, you are probably not miles ahead of the secnd best team.

The chances of the best team winning two "60%" matches in consecutive weeks is 36%.

So, over any three year period IF they are the best team, they will win the flag 36% of the time and not win it 64% of the time (assuming they have a 60% chance of winning the PF and GF)

 

[Dan26]

I still maintain Brisbane were fortunate to win all 3.

It's not that they didn't deserve them. They did. It's just that they weren't "that" good in any of those years.

You need a lot of luck to keep winning flags, and to keep getting through those Preliminary Finals and Grand Finals.

Brisbane, remember nearly lost in '02. In 2003, they lost a final. Hypohetically, if it was simply a knockout top 4 (1v4 2v3) they wouldn't have even been in the Grand Final that year.

Playing certain opponents at certain times, hitting your form at the right time is often a matter of luck. Brisbane, for instance played their worst Grand Final, with their most experienced (and I think the best) of their four Grand Final sides. Shouldn't such a side be more likely of performing at their best because of their experience?

It just goes to show you, that hitting form for the Grand Final is not all about "being a great side and always peaking in September." Sometimes great sides don't play well on a particualr day. Look at Geelong this year.

Brisbane was a case of the "36% chance of winning the flag" happened to come up 3 years in a row.

If you went back in history and played the 2001-2-3 seasons from scratch again in round 1, they might end up winning one, or two, or even none, depending on the variables.

 

[Rockford]

Having said that, due to the quality and age of their list, I would be disappointed as an Hawthorn supporter, if the Hawks didn't win another flag in the next 5yrs, and I think Geelong supporters would feel the same, due to the depth and quality of their side.

If the Cats were to finish minor Premiers again and not win the Flag next year I'd be disappointed, nevermind the next 5 years

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

I think it depends on the cicumstances.

Winning one premiership is damn hard work and takes so much to go right, that winning one is obviously a MASSIVE achievement. If it takes 3 - 4 years at the top to get that one, never look a gift horse in the mouth. It's a flag.

That said, I now look back with a touch of disappointment that we 'only' won two flags in the early 90's.

We had a side that won 12 or 13 straight in 91', peaked way too early, staggered towards the end of the year, bolted out of the blocks in the GF and then got over run by a team that I think even Hawks fans would concede shouldn't have beaten us that year. They got through on class and experience, but the Eagles should not have missed out on the 91' flag.

So we win in 92' and 94', and with virtually the same team miss the GF altogether in 93', which is won by a team now remembered as the 'Baby Bombers', who won a flag well ahead of when they actually thought that group would.

So for 4 years as one of the top two teams in the league, we walk away with 2 flags, 3 GF appearances total, and 2 flags won by teams that would probably feel they were a 'bonus'. To me, the fact we won 2, not 3 in that 4 years period irks me.

Don't expect for a second that we would win all 4, but one of those 2 massive opportunities in 91' and 93' should have been converted.

 

[worthy]

1 = Par
2 = Birdie
3 = Eagle

 

[worthy]

Brisbane were "that" good, they didn't play to win the minor premiership(finish on top), they were managed perfectly to be in top form for the finals.
3 in a row is massive, just ask WC, PA and Geelong fans, Geelong and WC in particular, one is hard enough. List management, committment and motivation at Bris during this time gets underrated.

 

[shoe]

People never learn do they.

Nah man, they won a flag & they have middle-range aged players, guaranteed dynasty.

I blame Brisbane for this. Every teams' supporters start going on about dynasties as soon as they win 1.

 

[shoe]

West coast had a good midfield and that was about it. Hawthorn's team is far superior to west coasts.

'Far superior' is a bit much. You forward line is undoubtably better, but i'd argue the rest of the teams were about equal.
I don't think you could argue that ANY premiership winning team is 'far superior' from any other....

 

[Waspy79]

Actually for one reason or another Brisbane's whole glory era seems to be littered with common misconceptions.

Myth 1: Brisbane upset Essendon to win the 2001 GF.
Fact 1: Brisbane had won 15 games on the trot prior to the GF including the famous 'if it bleeds, we can kill it' win against Essendon.

Myth 2: Brisbane were at their peak in 2003.
Fact 2: Brisbane had a 14-1-7 record in the home and away season placing them in 3rd but only 6 points ahead of the 8th placed Essendon. They proceeded to lose their first final against Collingwood at the MCG only to win their next 3 finals including the massive GF win over Collingwood (which is where the myth comes from) to take the flag.

Myth 3: Brisbane were old, injured and a shadow of their former selves in 2004.
Fact 3: Brisbane were more or less as strong as ever in 2004 being premiership favourite throughout the second half of the season and coming close to winning the minor premiership for the first time. Heading into the GF they were red hot favourite to complete the four-peat, fielded a younger side than Port, and had all of their best players out on the park (unlike Port who were missing their best ruckman and best midfielder).[/quote]

I haven't seen it put better elsewhere. Well done Mythbuster.

 

[lionbear]

and had all of their best players out on the park.

On paper yes, in reality no. Our team played too many players under injury clouds. You guys were primed and deserved your win.

Your Best Midfielder and Ruckman hadn't played in years so that's a myth right there. Plus remember we had to use McLaren in 04 with 2 of our 3 best ruckman out.

Reality is if we were still as good as you say we were, why didn't we challenge in 05.