AFL Rankings: Round 24 2023

So here we are at the end of the longest ‘home-and-away’ AFL season ever, and there probably still aren’t too many people outside of the most ‘one-eyed’ supporters who have a clear favourite to win the premiership from here. The top four teams have shown mixed form in recent weeks, while the team that looks to be the most in-form – the GWS Giants – had to win in the final match to even qualify for the finals in the first place.

In any case, let’s have a go at predicting again how the finals will play out, using the current rankings and estimated home ground advantage. Note here that most of these match-ups would be expected to be very close, and I’m not picking the winners with much confidence. Nevertheless, here’s the ‘head-to-head’ outcomes of how the rankings have the finals playing out.

Collingwood is the predicted Grand Final winner, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground over Brisbane. I’d also say however there’s not much less than a one-in-four chance the Magpies go out of the finals in ‘straight sets’. Still they finished on top of the ladder, and almost on top of the rankings, so they seem to have about as good a chance as anyone.

However, Collingwood was helped a bit this season by their opposition being inaccurate in front of goal. There’s a fair case to be made that the two strongest sides in the home-and-away season may have been Brisbane and Melbourne. Both have better differentials for scoring shots, inside 50s, ‘net possession chains’, and contested possessions than Collingwood (see table below). A slightly different rankings system could well have them as the two ‘best’ teams going into the finals – although the Pies and Demons do still have the advantage over the Lions that the Grand Final will be played in Melbourne no matter what happens.

AFL Rankings: Round 23 2023

A surprising battle for the eighth finals spot

Suddenly, unexpectedly, modern-day rivals GWS and the Western Bulldogs are fighting it out for the last AFL finals spot this season. Just a couple of weeks ago the Bulldogs were considerably more favoured than the Giants to get a spot in the final eight. The Dogs had a big advantage in terms of percentage, and were playing two of the bottom three teams on the ladder – Hawthorn and West Coast – in the next two rounds. Geelong in the final round presented a tougher match-up for the Bulldogs, but they still were widely considered a better chance of beating the Cats than the Giants were of winning on the road against a red-hot Carlton side.

Well, no more. The Bulldogs’ shock loss to West Coast on the weekend – possibly the most unexpected loss of the season – puts them now one win behind GWS, and no longer ‘in control of their own finals destiny’ (I mean, they still have control if GWS lose). Even more, GWS look a good deal more formidable than they did a week ago. The Giants kicked their highest-ever score on their way to a massive 126-point win against Essendon, which has them now as the fifth highest-rated side on the rankings heading into the final round.

If GWS beat Carlton next week they are into the finals. The rankings give them a 40 per cent chance of doing so, whereas it would have been about 30 per cent a week ago. But even if they lose they can still make it if the Bulldogs lose as well. The Dogs are given a 36 per cent chance of beating Geelong. Putting that together gives GWS roughly a 78 per chance of grabbing the last finals spot, and the Bulldogs a 22 per cent chance.

Of the two teams, given recent form/competitiveness, the Giants would be the more ‘interesting’ team to see in the finals. Still, if the Dogs can get there in the final round they’ll have (somewhat) ‘earned’ it, and we know from recent history what damage they can do from the bottom reaches of the eight.  

Locked in

The Bulldogs’ loss means that St. Kilda and Sydney are locked into the finals, as is Carlton after their win on the weekend. Credit to the Saints for making it and their performance against Geelong to clinch a spot – and they have been in the top eight all season – but it would be surprising if they got past the second week. The Swans’ season basically improved significantly after their massive 171-point win against the Eagles in Round 15, and while they have had some narrow – and controversial – wins in recent weeks, they look slightly better-placed to go further.

Carlton seem to be the most dangerous of the three teams after nine straight wins – although again, a couple of those have been narrow. Their defence has improved significantly over the season, and they now rank with St. Kilda and Melbourne in terms of their miserliness in allowing opposition scores when the ball goes inside their back 50. Unlike those two teams however, the Blues are also relatively decent at scoring when the ball gores into their own forward 50. They rank highly for clearance and contested possession differential, which in theory, should stand them in good stead for the ‘pressure cooker’ of finals.

Really, the Blues’ main weakness is they are not going to finish in the top four. So while they can probably match it with any team, they are going to have to win another four matches in a row – and against good opposition – to ultimately win the premiership. That’s hard, and unlikely – although really, any premiership is ‘unlikely’ for any one specific team – but after ten years out of the finals, Carlton fans may be content just to get any finals wins back under their belt.

(Way Too Many Thoughts) On the Selection and Revision of the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century

As part of the VFL/AFL’s 100^th season celebrations in 1996, a Team Of The Century was selected and announced. While the team is in part now an historical artifact, it still to some extent shapes comparisons between the great players, and serves as a benchmark for discussing new stars. For example, when there are discussions about whether Matthew Scarlett is the best full-back of all-time, the main reference point for comparison is usually Stephen Silvagni, who was often referred to as ‘Full-back Of The Century’ after he was named in the side.

But how much are those reference points actually historical ‘accidents’, determined by the Team selection process itself? As I’ll get into below, Silvagni probably wasn’t even the first choice of the selection panel. There were rules and limitations around the selection process – how much did that affect the final outcome?

My conclusion: a little. I think the majority of the team had a reasonably strong ‘consensus’, but there may have been some ‘quirks’ in a few of the positions.

(P.S. – If at any point your response is “How can they be compared? No-one saw them all play”, just stop reading; this type of sports discussion isn’t for you.)

The Team Of The Century – and the rule that got Silvagni selected

Alright, first let’s re-cap who was selected:

 

Now here’s the main point to note. Also as part of the 1996 celebrations the Australian Football Hall of Fame was established with an initial set of 136 inductees. To be eligible for selection in the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century, a player had to be in that initial Australian Football Hall of Fame class (and actually played in the VFL/AFL of course, so no Barrie Robran or Merv McIntosh), unless they were not yet eligible to be in the Hall of Fame – i.e. present-day players and recent retirees. (That initial Hall of Fame class also had selection boundaries, with 30 players each from the three periods of 1901-1930, 1931-1960, and 1961-1995, and some from pre-1901).

As selection panel member Allen Aylett recounted years later, this rule played a large part in Silvagni being selected into the team. Aylett’s view is that the panel preferred either David Dench or Geoff Southby, but neither were eligible to be selected as they only made the Hall Of Fame a few years later. Now you could argue that if they were not in the 100-odd initial inductees maybe they shouldn’t be in the ‘greatest ever’ team of 21, but it sounds like they were the preferred candidates of the panel in any case. (Also, to get in the Hall of Fame, they weren’t competing for 100-odd spots against players from all eras, they were competing for the 30 spots allocated to players from 1961-1995.)

Collingwood full-back Jack Regan was eligible and the overwhelming favourite to be selected, but Aylett says the two oldest members of the panel (Percy Beames and Bill Jacobs) who saw Regan play weren’t supportive of him. That is when they started considering Silvagni as a candidate, noting too they would have been short of other options since there were only a few full-backs in the initial Hall of Fame class.

Hence, Carlton’s Silvagni ended up being selected and wound up as the ‘benchmark’ for full-backs ever since, whereas before that barely anyone rated him higher than Regan (at least based on accounts of Regan, as even then not a lot of people would have seen him play) – or even Dench or Southby. Now it is true Silvagni was partway through his career in 1996, and subsequent accomplishments may have seen him considered the ‘greatest’ full-back eventually anyway. But it sounds likely he at least would not have been ‘Full-back Of The Century’ if Dench or Southby had been eligible.  

The nominations

Each of the 18 field positions had three nominations, with the three-man interchange able to be made up of players from any position not in the starting 18.

It is unclear whether the nominations happened first, and the selections were made from those ‘shortlists’, or the selections were made first and nominations filled out around them to build suspense for the announcement. From what Aylett says about the process to find a candidate for the full-back position after Dench and Southby were ruled out, it may well have been the latter.

If the nominations did come first, it is also uncertain whether players could only be considered for ‘one side of the field’ only; i.e. they were up against two other nominations rather than five for pockets, flanks, and wings. I expect that at least some players were up against others for specific roles – one of the back pocket groups is clearly a ‘second ruck’ role, while one of the forward pocket groups looks like a ‘second rover’ role. (I do know what it was for the readers’ vote, which I’ll get to below.)

Anyway, these were the nominations:

The main thing of note in terms of the selection process is that six players were nominated for more than one position: Rantall, Bourke, Reynolds, Ablett Sr, Bartlett, and Matthews. Of particular note is that Ablett Sr wasn’t nominated as a half-forward flank, which is the position he is most associated with, and Reynolds wasn’t nominated as a rover. That means Ablett Sr had to ‘get past’ either Matthews in the forward pocket or Coleman at full-forward to earn a spot in the first 18, both of which were a tall order. And while Reynolds was known to play on the wing or half-forward, he is certainly most well-known as a rover (or ruck rover). In the end, Reynolds was named at half-forward, again suggesting that perhaps the selections came first and the nominations came second.

Nicholls nominated as a back pocket but not a ruck also makes me think the team may have come first. Dempsey was a ruck that was well-known for also playing in the back pocket, and Mueller played on multiple lines, but Nicholls was primarily a ruck who ‘rested’ forward. I expect the panel decided that the two ‘best’ rucks were Farmer and Nicholls, and placed one at ruck and the other in the back pocket – and similarly for Skilton and Bunton in the rover and forward pocket positions.

Another thing of note, which I’ve pointed out above for full-backs, is that some positions were not high on options; for a few of them (backs mostly) if you were in the initial Hall of Fame class you were a good chance of being a Team of The Century nomination.

Conversely, for positions full of ‘stars’ it is noteworthy who wasn’t nominated. In particular Tony Lockett, Jason Dunstall, Peter Hudson, and Gordon Coventry were not nominated at full-forward, so based on that you’d assume the panel rated Coleman and Pratt and even Ablett as being better in that position.

The readers vote

Leading up to the announcement, Herald Sun readers also had a chance to vote from the ‘nominations’ in each position, and name their interchange. I remember ticking the boxes and posting my vote! Here’s the published ‘readers team’:

Noting that the readers were limited by the nominations (so they couldn’t pick Lockett for example), the readers team as a whole was fairly much in line with the panel’s choices. Given that fans picked three full-forwards on field when given a broader range of options in 2014, limiting their options may not have been the worst move.

They agreed with the panel on fifteen of the twenty-one spots: Nicholls, Doull, Whitten, Murray, Bourke, Stewart, Greig, Jesaulenko, Hart, Coleman, Bunton, Farmer, Barassi, Skilton, and Dyer – with Ablett Sr on field rather than the bench. Hence, I’m comfortable in saying there was a fair degree of ‘consensus’ on the Team of The Century – although apart from not being able to pick some players, I reckon there’s a good chance that six players being nominated in multiple positions affected the outcome.

The readers team doesn’t include Leigh Matthews! I repeat, the player that is often considered the greatest footballer ever – Leigh Matthews – was not in the readers’ team, not even on the interchange! What happened?

It’s unclear whether the readers team was decided by who had the most votes, or who had the most votes in that position. I know for sure from filling out the form that there were only three possible candidates in each spot on the field. My guess is that Ablett Sr is in the final ‘readers team’ over Matthews because he got the most ‘ticks’ in that forward pocket spot, and Skilton got the rover position because he had the most ‘ticks’ in that spot. But Matthews could well have got more total votes than either Ablett or Skilton. And if Matthews didn’t get many ‘interchange’ votes, because he was usually picked on field as either the forward pocket or rover, maybe that’s how he missed out there too.

Similarly with Dick Reynolds. Reynolds not only may have his vote split over two positions, they are also – as discussed above – two positions he is not heavily associated with. Greig is far more well-known as a wing than Reynolds, and Bartlett is more well-known as a forward. Reynolds may have been ‘shafted’ in the readers’ team in part because of this.

Though it is worth noting that some of Bartlett’s vote could have been split too with the forward pocket. This suggests that perhaps more people voted for Bartlett relative to Reynolds than they did for Bartlett relative to Bunton, resulting in Bartlett in being named at half-forward on the readers team, and Bunton beating out Aylett for the forward pocket.

Note the readers picked Regan. It feels like the only two people at the time who didn’t think it should be Regan at full-back were Percy Beames and Bill Jacobs.

Finally, the readers picked Charlie Sutton over Bernie Smith. Smith is clearly considered a ‘great’, but this selection seems more lineball the more I think about it. I find it interesting that The Sporting Life unofficial ‘All-Australian’ teams in the late 1940s and early 1950s picked Sutton four times and Smith only once. Smith didn’t even get picked in the year he won the Brownlow! – it was Sutton and Magarey Medal winner John Marriott. Jack Dyer’s book ‘The Greatest’ also left Smith out of the best side from 1947 to 1956 (and picked Sutton as the best back pocket ever). Did having fellow Geelong player Bob Davis on the selection panel help get Smith over the line? Did they want a South Australian representative in the dawn of the national competition? This all suggests at least he wasn’t as ‘out of the box’ in his position as his selection led me to believe.

An ‘alternative truth’ Team Of The Century

Considering the above observations, I propose this ‘alternative truth’ VFL/AFL Team Of The Century, if the selection process had been a touch different.

It is mostly the same as the official team. We ignore the ‘old guys’ on the panel though, and go back to the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the time that Regan was the greatest full-back ever, no questions asked. Regan did poll well in the Brownlow, so we’re not just relying on anecdotes here. Now the debate becomes whether Silvagni surpassed Regan after 1996.

We’ll also side with the Herald Sun readers of the time and those Sporting Life selectors, and pick Sutton over Smith.

The half-forward flank situation is murky, due to Ablett Sr not being nominated there, and Bartlett and Reynolds being nominated in multiple positions. I think we can say the readers sided with Bartlett over Reynolds at half-forward. Whether they would have sided with Jesaulenko or Ablett Sr over Bartlett is unclear. But since Bartlett didn’t actually make the official team, let’s put Jesaulenko and Ablett Sr on the half-forward flanks, and give Bartlett a spot on the bench instead. Reynolds stays in the team too, as he made the official team, and I think he may well have got ‘shafted’ by the selection process for the readers team.

Note that if this selection had happened a few years later I reckon Wayne Carey (not even nominated in 1996) would have been picked over Hart at centre half-forward, although that may have depended upon whether Carey was involved in any scandal at the time. So if you want an alternative ‘20^th century’ VFL/AFL team, replace Hart with Carey instead.

The 21^st century ‘greats’

OK, now since the VFL/AFL Team Of The Century was released, there have been a number of attempts to update it, on the view that it essentially stands as an ‘all-time team’ as much as a 20^th century record. For instance, one of the most ‘searchable’ attempts was by the Herald Sun in 2014, where they made four changes.

(Many would argue that it’s best just to start again since the AFL started, but I’ve seen that done plenty of times, and I’m of the view it’s one continuous league.)

Below are some of the more common suggestions I’ve seen for changes to accommodate more recent legends, and what I think of them.

Gavin Wanganeen over Smith or Sutton: I’ve warmed to this one now I’ve found out Smith may not have clearly stood out to his contemporaries as someone extraordinary, while noting that Wanganeen himself picked up five All-Australian selections. Both Smith and Wanganeen won Brownlow Medals from the back pocket, so there isn’t really a strong argument for one or the other on that basis (other than I don’t know how Wanganeen beat Greg Williams in 1993, and Smith had an all-time great acceptance photo). As for Wanganeen v Sutton – Sutton is more revered, though in part because he’s synonymous with one club. Wanganeen looks more like the ideal of a modern defender. I think there’s a decent case to be made for Wanganeen here.

(Corey Enright and Chris Johnson are other recent small defenders that get support, but probably more as mainstays of successful teams – though Enright being ‘twice best-and-fairest’ of a premiership team is a nice argument to have in one’s – ahem – back pocket…)

Silvagni or Scarlett over Regan: This probably wouldn’t even be a discussion if the pre-1996 consensus had survived the Team Of The Century selection. Silvagni was pretty much who he was by the mid-90s. Let the Magpies have this one… (Otherwise, Silvagni v Scarlett is a tough one I reckon. I also think the stats are kind to Dustin Fletcher.)

A ‘true’ defender over Nicholls: Yeah, a second ruck resting in the back pocket is very much a thing of the past. But it’s still enough of the past I’d allow it, particularly because Nicholls is generally regarded as closer in greatness to Farmer than any ‘true’ back pocket is to him. (Bourke moving to the back pocket is a better suggestion than I first appreciated though.)

Luke Hodge or Andrew McLeod over Murray: I think there’s something to this one. Hodge and McLeod had basically the same longevity as Murray. They definitely had more team success, and won two Norm Smith Medals each, although not getting to the Grand Final is hardly Murray’s fault. But even still I think Murray may have a slight edge. He racked up best-and-fairest awards for fun, although in a relatively poor team. Outside of the team though he not only won a Brownlow Medal, he got a truckload of votes in his career – only Skilton had more when he retired. Plus, there’s less doubts over his status as an ‘actual’ defender. At the least, I don’t think either Hodge or McLeod go clearly past him.

Gary Ablett Jr, Chris Judd, Michael Voss, James Hird, Nathan Buckley, any great inside midfielder over Bourke and Greig: The All-Australian team has infamously left out ‘true’ wing players for years to fit more inside midfield stars in, and revisions of the Team Of The Century have sometimes pulled the same thing to fit in the 21^st-century midfield stars. Were Ablett Jr, Judd, Voss, etc. better players than Bourke and Greig? Possibly. Were any of them actually wings? Probably not. I don’t think there’s a ‘true’ wing/outside midfielder in the 21^st century that is rated as highly as people rated Bourke and Greig. I might accept Adam Goodes, since I’m not sure he even had a position.

Greg Williams over Stewart: I haven’t mentioned Williams much yet, who I ‘kicked out’ of the Team Of The Century above without comment. Williams was great. Three Brownlows beats two though, and the readers didn’t pick Williams back in ’96. (P.S. ‘Diesel’ probably should have had three Brownlows; again, I don’t know how Wanganeen beat him in 1993.)

Carey over Hart: This hurts, but I accept it.

Lance Franklin over Carey: Hmm, it’s tempting…

Lockett or Franklin over Coleman: I get the argument. Lockett has kicked more goals than anyone in VFL/AFL history. Franklin was a marvel to watch, and has kicked the most ‘era-adjusted’ goals ever. Coleman kicked about half their total amounts before his career ended prematurely. But on goals per game, only Hudson is close. Really, the main reason why this is even a debate seems to me simply that John Coleman dislocated his knee. Or maybe that many more people in Australia could tell you who Lockett and Franklin are.

Judd or Voss or Hird or Buckley, etc. over Barassi: This seems a little wrong to consider since Barassi was central to defining the ruck rover position. As much of an icon as he is though, he also seems to be the one that experts – when pressed – admit was just a rung below the game’s greatest on‑ballers. I think from a pure footballing standpoint either Judd or Voss could be considered a better choice, I personally lean towards Judd. Lucky we have a fourth bench spot now, so I can somewhat avoid the ire of any Demon fans reading this.

Ablett Jr over Skilton or Bunton (or Matthews): Man, you could make an argument these are four of the best players ever. Skilton got the rover spot over Bunton in the Team Of The Century. Matthews was a star up forward, and Ablett Jr was very capable there. I think Ablett Jr should be in the starting 18, and I’d bench Bunton who also had by far the shortest VFL/AFL career of the four.

Dustin Martin over Bartlett: I reckon the consensus for best-ever Tiger shifted after Martin won his third Norm Smith Medal in the 2020 Grand Final. Dusty probably gets in over KB now – not that Bartlett actually ever was in the ‘official’ team – and I think there’s a decent case he takes one of the onfield forward spots as a midfielder-forward. Martin, Carey, and Ablett Sr as a half-forward line is the stuff of dreams or nightmares. Jezza is more versatile coming off the bench anyway. (Could Hird be half-forward instead of Martin? Yes that’s definitely a reasonable view, but Martin seems to be at the ‘top of the pyramid’ now. Plus, he’s just cooler than Hird was.)

Anyone over Whitten or Doull: Nope. Although Teddy probably wasn’t anywhere near as much of a pure centre half-back as these exercises make it seem like he was.

Taking my ‘alternative truth’ Team Of The Century as a starting point then, an updated all-time VFL/AFL team could be this – with the benefit of a fourth interchange player like current teams:

That’s not a lot of changes given the passage of about 30 years, but many of the main stars in that time have been inside midfielders or forwards. So unless we’re somewhat ‘cheating’ to get guys like Judd or Buckley on the wings, I think the half-back and centre lines should stay as they are. You might disagree though.

OK that was a bit, but hope it was of interest. Don’t ask me about an all-time All-Australian team; I’m too tired now to even consider how to fit Robran in…

AFL Rankings: Round 22 2023

The top four teams of 2023 are not in top form

From Round 9 onwards this season, the top four teams on the AFL ladder have been in some order: Collingwood, Brisbane, Port Adelaide, and Melbourne. This led many to suggest even from midway through the season that there is a ‘clear’ group of four frontrunners for this year’s premiership, and then about ten teams battling it out for the other four spots in the finals.

The actual picture though may be a bit more ‘muddled’. Of my top nine ranked teams, the four that are actually rated the ‘weakest’ over the past five weeks in terms of ranking points are the aforementioned top four (see table below). Port Adelaide had a strong win on the weekend, but before that lost four straight matches. Collingwood lost by five goals to Hawthorn last week, and Brisbane lost by seven goals to Gold Coast a couple of weeks ago. Collingwood, Brisbane, and Melbourne have all had a couple of close wins in the past month, though noting some of those were against the other top four sides.

In contrast, some of the teams outside the top four have been in relatively strong form in recent weeks (see table above). Fifth-placed Carlton has won eight matches in a row by an average of 42 points, which has also vaulted them up to second on the rankings. Sydney have won five matches in a row and are now in the top eight. Geelong, the Western Bulldogs, and Adelaide have all had a couple of wins by big margins in recent weeks, though they have also had some unexpected losses.

To be sure, since the top eight started in 1994 the premiership has in most years been won by the top four teams (although really the top three), with only Adelaide in 1998 and the Western Bulldogs in 2016 winning the flag from lower down. Part of that is because it takes four straight wins against good teams to win the premiership from positions five to eight, which is one extra win than it takes for the top four. Another part of that is because the top four teams are often considerably stronger.

The first part of that will still be true this season. The second part however may not be so, perhaps giving the teams outside the top four a slightly stronger chance than most years.

The ‘Living Memory’ VFL/AFL Premiership Table

All AFL/VFL premierships matter. Those which happened during your lifetime probably matter more though. So what if we adjusted each team's premierships for the estimated percentage of today's people that were alive for it?

To do this, I’ve adjusted each team’s number of premierships according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ age distribution for persons in Australia. Some minor assumptions: I’ve taken zero years as 2022, and haven’t split out 100+ years, so anything before 1922 carries a weight of zero. (I also haven’t adjusted for memory formation in one’s younger years, and memory loss in one’s older years.)

As a guide, roughly 75% of today’s population were alive for premierships in the early-2000s, roughly 50% were alive for premierships in the mid-1980s, and roughly 25% were alive for premierships in the mid-1960s. (You could also get a similar result from just giving a weight of 1 to the most recent premiership, 0.99 to the next most recent, and so on.)

OK, here’s the lifetime adjusted VFL/AFL premiership tally:

No surprises with Hawthorn coming (clearly) out on top. They’ve won four premierships since 2008, and they won another eight premierships from 1971 to 1991. If the Hawks were as successful over their whole history in the league as they have been in the past 60-odd years they’d have twenty premierships.

Richmond coming second may be a slight surprise for those who remember their 1983 to 2016 premiership drought. But they have three premierships since 2017, which already puts them above many teams in terms of average lifetime flags, and their five premierships from 1967 to 1980 would still be remembered/were witnessed by a decent-sized minority of the current population.

Geelong are third, having won four premierships since 2007, and West Coast are sixth with four premierships since 1992. Between them sit Carlton and Essendon – neither of which have won a premiership for over twenty years – but from 1960 to 2000 the Blues won eight premierships and the Bombers won six, so they still have a significant proportion of their fanbases that have tasted lots of success.

Melbourne and Brisbane rank next, although through quite different ways. The Demons of course won a premiership very recently in 2021, so most of their fans have been alive for one premiership, but there’s a small portion of their fanbase that have seen up to seven premierships due to their golden run from 1955 to 1964. Brisbane meanwhile gets its ranking from three flags in a row, back in the early 2000s.

The rest are reasonably self-explanatory in that they have low overall premiership tallies… and then there’s Collingwood… The Magpies have fifteen premierships in all, ranking them second overall, but thirteen of them came before 1959. Even Pie supporters under the age of 30 would only have experienced at most the one premiership in 2010. They’re essentially similar to Melbourne in terms of flags won, but with a less recent premiership and one in the 1990s breaking up the drought. (I promise the motivation for this exercise wasn’t purely to ‘have a go’ at the Magpies – they still have a massive fanbase regardless. They’ve also been in the finals plenty over that period.) 

So there you go. Although those premiership cups from before you were born are still taking up space in the trophy cabinet, this adjusted tally may feel a little more 'real' in terms of the 'living memories' of the AFL's current fanbases.

AFL Rankings: Round 21 2023

Before their big win this week, Kane Cornes said that the Western Bulldogs should discuss coach Luke Beveridge’s position at the end of the year, claiming that the Bulldogs “were wasting one of the AFL’s great lists”.

In support of his claim, Cornes pointed out that the Bulldogs had three of the top five rated players this season; midfielders Marcus Bontempelli and Tom Liberatore, and ruck Tim English. He further claimed that they have two key forwards in their “absolute prime” – Aaron Naughton and Jamarra Ugle-Hagan – and noted that they still have two (former) All-Australian defenders in Bailey Dale and Caleb Daniel.

Cornes is right that the Bulldogs have some wonderful top-end talent. English has probably been the league’s best ruck this year, and Bontempelli may just be the league’s best player. Liberatore and Adam Treloar have been great in the midfield, Jack Macrae has performed well in his shift to mid-forward, and Dale and Daniel – along with defender Ed Richards – have again had solid seasons.

The rest of the team though has several developing players and journeymen. Naughton at 23 years old is possibly in his ‘prime’ and has had a good season, but it is somewhat questionable that Ugle-Hagan is at just 21, and recruit Rory Lobb – now 30 years old and at his third club – is probably on the other side of his.

The Bulldogs’ medium forwards and key defenders are also on average below those of other clubs, at least according to the AFL Player Ratings (see table below). Cody Weightman has contributed almost two goals per game, but around him a rotating cast of Rhylee West, Arthur Jones, Mitch Hannan, and Lachlan McNeil have contributed relatively little between them. The key defenders also lack a ‘top-liner’, even noting that the Player Ratings do not capture some ‘off the ball’ defensive work. None of Liam Jones, Alex Keath, Ryan Gardner, and Josh Bruce rank in the top 50 for average intercepts, although Gardner is equal top of the league for average ‘one percenters’.

The Dogs’ balance of talent is reminiscent of Melbourne back in 2020, when the Demons had three of the top-rated players in ruck Max Gawn and midfielders Clayton Oliver and Christian Petracca, but their list fell away quickly after their top tier. In that year the Demons missed the finals; they jumped up the next year however to win the premiership. That both shows how a few standout players are not in themselves enough to challenge for a flag – but also that you’re not far away if you’ve already got that top-end talent in place, and the rest of the team follow. 

AFL Rankings: Round 20 2023

Adelaide > Port Adelaide?!

Before last week’s ‘Showdown’ the suggestion that Adelaide could be better than their cross-town rivals Port Adelaide might have been met with some derision. The Power after all are sitting second on the AFL ladder, had a club record thirteen-match winning streak in the middle of the season, and just fell short of beating league leaders Collingwood the week before. The Crows meanwhile had won less than half of their games and, despite falling just short themselves in beating top four side Melbourne on the road, were ‘languishing’ in thirteenth spot on the ladder.

Adelaide however comfortably beat Port Adelaide by 47 points. The Crows are still well behind the Power on the ladder, but they did leapfrog them in the rankings, which have rated them higher than their actual AFL ladder position for several weeks now. What’s the deal?

Well, although Port Adelaide has won five more games than Adelaide this season, that has been on the back of several narrow wins for the Power, and several narrow losses for the Crows. Port have won five games by less than ten points, against Sydney, St. Kilda, Essendon twice, and Melbourne. In contrast Adelaide have lost to Melbourne, and Collingwood twice, by less than a goal. Adelaide’s average winning margin is 48 points and their average losing margin is just 18 points (see table below), while Port’s average winning margin is just 25 points and their average losing margin is 40 points.

The result is Adelaide’s points for compared with points against (i.e. percentage) is actually better than Port Adelaide’s, at a fairly impressive 116 compared with 110. That is boosted by a massive 122 point win by the Crows against bottom team West Coast, but even taking that out the two teams have been similar in terms of their net margins (see table above).

A good sign for Port Adelaide being a top side is they have a great inside 50 ratio, getting the ball into their forward area 15 per cent more than their opponents, while the Crows are about even on this measure. But Adelaide have been more effective in scoring when they get the ball inside 50, averaging 1.78 points per inside 50, to the Power’s 1.59. And so it played out on the weekend, with Adelaide having only one more inside 50 than Port Adelaide, but kicking seven more goals.

Port Adelaide are of course in the more enviable ladder position, nestled in the top four, while Adelaide have a large battle on their hands just to make it to the finals. But the difference between the two sides is probably not nearly as large as the ladder suggests, and quite encouraging for the Crows.