SA Footy

Thought everyone might find this link interesting http://afl.allthestats.com/statistics/alltime.php
Funniest thing I saw in it was that Ninthmond are ninth on the all time winning % ladder

Wow, I changed the criteria so it was only from when Port joined and Geelong were clearly top (almost 2 percent clear). Going on that we should have won more flags.

Wedgie wrote:Going on that we should have won more flags.

Join the club.

This ladder highlights just how bad Fremantle are - if you change the dates to 1994 to present, Freo are the worst performed team. How they keep members and sponsors is beyond me.

blink wrote:This ladder highlights just how bad Fremantle are - if you change the dates to 1994 to present, Freo are the worst performed team. How they keep members and sponsors is beyond me.

Because you can't love West Coast and Perth is a growing city.

regards,

REB

Pretty cool. Since 1987, which is when I believe the name changed to the AFL, Gellong easily has the best winning percentage, although obviously not on Grand Final Day. Also an stat, if iI am correct about when the name changed, West Coast have played more AFL games than any other side, and I assume that also means more finals. I think West Coasts 3 flags, 5 GF's, and more finals than anyone else plus being forth in terms of winning percentage makes them the most successful side of the AFL era. Anyone disagree?

Bat Pad wrote:Pretty cool. Since 1987, which is when I believe the name changed to the AFL, Gellong easily has the best winning percentage, although obviously not on Grand Final Day. Also an stat, if iI am correct about when the name changed, West Coast have played more AFL games than any other side, and I assume that also means more finals. I think West Coasts 3 flags, 5 GF's, and more finals than anyone else plus being forth in terms of winning percentage makes them the most successful side of the AFL era. Anyone disagree?

i dont rekon it changed its name till 1990 mate.

the_big_bang wrote:

Bat Pad wrote:Pretty cool. Since 1987, which is when I believe the name changed to the AFL, Gellong easily has the best winning percentage, although obviously not on Grand Final Day. Also an stat, if iI am correct about when the name changed, West Coast have played more AFL games than any other side, and I assume that also means more finals. I think West Coasts 3 flags, 5 GF's, and more finals than anyone else plus being forth in terms of winning percentage makes them the most successful side of the AFL era. Anyone disagree?

i dont rekon it changed its name till 1990 mate.

Yep, 1990 was the first official AFL season. From 87 - 89 Brisbane and West Coast were a part of the comp, but it was still called the VFL.

Its probably one of Geelong's downfalls in that they've consistently won matches for the last 20 years meaning they've never got priority picks or no 1 draft picks like a lot of other clubs.
Thank Christ we're good breeders and have reaped quite well from the father/son rule, mind you we could have had Ben Cousins but I'm not sure if that would have been a good or a bad thing.

soooo.......... what you're telling me is..........

COLLINGWOOD ARE THE GREATEST CLUB EVER?

the_big_bang wrote:soooo.......... what you're telling me is..........

COLLINGWOOD ARE THE GREATEST CLUB EVER?

Carlton would have been up till 2002 when they started having a few losing seasons

Cheers for the correction. Well if you put it in from 1990 the Eagles go to 2nd on winning percentage. With what I mentioned earlier clearly the strongest club of the AFL era so far. Also good to see Carlton and Collingwood perform quite mediocre in the same period.

Wedgie wrote:Its probably one of Geelong's downfalls in that they've consistently won matches for the last 20 years meaning they've never got priority picks or no 1 draft picks like a lot of other clubs.
Thank Christ we're good breeders and have reaped quite well from the father/son rule, mind you we could have had Ben Cousins but I'm not sure if that would have been a good or a bad thing.

It would have been a very good thing because he is one of the best footballers of his generation. The environment people are in is as much responsible for the behavoiur as the person as well. He may or may not have fallen into the traps he has done if he went to Geelong but regardless he would have been good onfield. Despite all Cousins did the West Coast Eagles are far better off for having Cousins than if they never had him. The guy onfield is a superstar.

Wedgie wrote:Its probably one of Geelong's downfalls in that they've consistently won matches for the last 20 years meaning they've never got priority picks or no 1 draft picks like a lot of other clubs.

I see the opposite. To me, Geelong are proof that you don't need to bottom out. What you need to do is draft well with the picks you have. Granted GAJ is the equivalent of a no 1 draft pick but other than that they've had to build their team the hard way.

Sample selection:
1997 pick 45 - Matthew scarlett
1999 pick 8 - Joel Corey
2001 pick 8 - Jimmy Bartel
2001 pick 17 - James Kelly
2001 pick 24 - Steve Johnson
2001 pick 40 (father/son) - GAJ
2002 pick 7 - Andrew Mackie
2006 pick 7 - Joel Selwood

Add smart trades to get Mooney, Ottens & Harley and you have yourself a gun side without bottoming out.

On your other point about Geelong being the second best side since 1997. In the period 1998-2003 they were 12th. From 2004-2009 they are first and that's enough to pump them up to 1st over the whole 13 years. So the premiership opportunities lost are only post 2003. I think they should have had 2 by now and definitely should (and probably will IMO) have 2 by the end of this season.

And they should have nailed 1 flag between 1989 and 1995 but that's water under the bridge now. 3 gun teams over that era stood in their way.

REB (or you Wedgie) reckon that's a fair assessment?

^^Scarlett was father/son selection too i think.

GWW wrote:^^Scarlett was father/son selection too i think.

Oh OK ... there's a 3rd too IIRC. I just can't remember now. The lads will let us know.

hondo71 wrote:

GWW wrote:^^Scarlett was father/son selection too i think.

Oh OK ... there's a 3rd too IIRC. I just can't remember now. The lads will let us know.

Tom Hawkins?

Hawkins as well. Not that i'm saying their success has relied on father/sons, they've done a brilliant job of rebuilding the club since Brian Cook came on board a few years back.

We are talking like they have had some sort of dynasty. They have won one flag since 1963. Sure they have been the best side for three years but what does that count for? Premierships are what matters not minor round dominance.

Would love to see a similar table for cricket - Test cricket, one day cricket and as ugly as it is, 20/20 cricket. At the domestic level, shield cricket would also be interesting.

Of course, a SANFL table would be sensational.