Taking It One Decade At A Time

As we draw into the start of the 2012 AFL season (Yep, I don't count pre-season games as real footy) its time to trawl through my VFL / AFL 'all games ever played list'.

Last year, I could console (post-Grand Final loss) the Wobbler fans on this blog post with a bit of an historical factoid... that they are currently the team with the best winning record in the full history of the competition. (and for you Gen Y'ers, than means they are the 'most winning-est' team).

So lets paraphrase an old football adage, lets review teams performances "one decade at a time".*
*yes, the first really is only a 3 year period, so not truly a decade... understood.



THE BREAKAWAY

The first three years of the VFL involved the VFA power teams, and for geographic balance*, St. Kilda play 14 game seasons, plus a convoluted finals series that is best left for you to research and try to understand (because I wont try).
Essendon topped out the 1890's as the best, though Fitzroy actually had more Premierships. The St. Kilda failed to win a game in 3 full seasons.
* Port Melbourne were a VFA power and touted for inclusion but were rejected (possibly on the grounds that their players and supporters were 'too rowdy') in favour of weaker St. Kilda.



A NEW CENTURY, A NEW ERA

The first full decade saw the competition expand with the introduction of Richmond and University joining in 1908, and the number of games per season grow to 18. Interestingly, the VFL leaders chose to include one more VFA team (Richmond), and University which was then playing in the Metropolitan Football League.

From the turn of the century, Carlton had the best of the decade with 3 premierships, but it was Collingwood that dominated, winning 2/3rds of their games and 2 flags. Fitzroy also picked up 2 premierships as well.

University's first two seasons were quite productive, winning 15 of their first 36 games. Not a bad result for a new team, and better than Richmond performed as well. St.Kilda started to win some games, but a 25% win rate over the 10 years made for tough times at the Junction Oval.



THE YEARS OF LOSS AND SADNESS

After the introduction of new teams in the previous decade, the call to arms saw the loss of many a young man from Australia. And during the war years also saw the temporary loss of Melbourne (1916-18), Geelong (1916), Essendon (1916-17), South Melbourne (1916) and St. Kilda (1916-17)  from the competition on "patriotic grounds".

Also in this decade, after 51 consecutive losses and a total of 126 games over 7 years, University left the VFL at the end of the 1914 season. This left the competition as 9 teams (and a weekly bye) at the end of the decade. A situation that would be rectified in the next decade, with 3 new teams being accepted into the league.

A nice spread of premierships too in the war years, with Collingwood securing 3, Carlton, Fitzroy and Essendon securing 2 each. South Melbourne had the best of the decade, winning almost 7/10 games, but only 1 flag. Also worth noting, three teams (South, Carlton and Collingwood) dominated, winning 2/3rds (or more) of there games for the decade... clearly more than any other team.



In the next blog post: the 20's, 30's and 40's.

Money Can Buy You Wins

... but I'm still not sure if money can buy you love.

Earlier, I posted about how the 2011 season was the worst for blow-out margins in the history of the competition on several indicators.
On looking at the chart further, I could see a period in the past that was similar to the 2011 season.

But first, let's pick -apart the season that was a bit further, as there is some feeling (from AFLHQ and others) that this was inevitable due to the introduction of the Gold Coast.


So It's All About The Suns Then?
As noted in my previous post here, blow-outs were expected by the AFL, as the expansion teams came in and built teams. So using this as a premise, let's allow that "we knew they would happen with Gold Coast etc" point stand on its own, and ignore the other "these are very rare occurrences" comment (from the same post) COMPLETELY ALONE then.

So, taking AD's comment that its all about the Suns, then I have to call bulltish. A simple check of the winners and losers highlights that the Suns may well be the worst, but there were quite a few others that also dished up some rubbish as well.

If you look at the thrashed teams what do we know about their 2011 season.
- Adelaide and Port Adelaide: teams in rebuild mode, profit and financial issues associated with the SANFL licence and ground deal. Both sacked coaches (one in 2010, one in 2011).

- Melbourne and North Melbourne: Perennial Melbourne-based financial misfits, both these teams were belted by Collingwood and Geelong in 2011.

- Fremantle: The financially weaker brother of the WA teams, but perhaps their losses were more injury or travel related, as they had two bad losses in Melbourne.

- Throw in the Richmond and Western Bulldogs results, again from a pair of teams that have had financial crises (and often poor recruiting) too.

- You should disregard the Collingwood result (the Round 24 loss to Geelong), as it was in a game that had little value for them... well, that's their side of the story anyway!

And how many of the above were in receipt of financial assistance from AFLHQ? From the AFL's 2010 report (pdf),
          A total of $7.1 million was paid from the AFL’s Annual Special Distribution
          fund to the following clubs:
          • Western Bulldogs Football Club ($1.7 million)
          • North Melbourne Football Club ($1.4 million)
          • Port Adelaide Football Club ($1.25 million)
          • Melbourne Football Club ($1.0 million)
          • Sydney Swans Football Club ($0.8 million)
          • Carlton Football Club ($0.6 million)
          • Richmond Football Club ($0.4 million)


From the winners perspective, the competitions big spenders and power clubs are there (Collingwood, Geelong, West Coast), joined (some what incongruously) by Melbourne. The grain-of-salt for that would be to consider their big wins were vs. Adelaide, vs. Fremantle and vs. Gold Coast, in what was a very odd season for them.

I think there is a case to be made, that the competition is unbalanced and that the richer stronger clubs have opened up an advantage over others. But in the world of the draft, and salary cap how can this be?

Well, there is still unrestricted off-field spending, which it has been argued has reached a new peak (FoxSports May 4 2011).
So, I put it to you, persistent reader that has gotten this far... that it comes down to spending and club finances as to not only how well your season goes, but also to how well you destroy the on-field opposition and create a blow-out game.


Finances and Poor Performance.
So how can anyone suggest in this day and age (of the salary cap, draft and other equalization schemes) that the finances and spend of clubs is creating disparity?

Looking back at the past year, there are many stories and hours of broadcast time that had been sent out around the off field spend of clubs, the overseas visits, and club facilities and staffing levels.  

Look back at the chart that shows the number of games lost by margins over 60 points. There is another period in AFL history that shows a very similar trend... that period between 1982 and 1996.

Any suggestions as to what happened between 82 and 96?

Here's a potted history right here...

    1981:    South Melbourne, in financial trouble, are relocated to Sydney by the VFL.

    1985:    The first murmurs of financial problems and payment issues at Fitzroy surface.

    1986:    Ranald McDonald resigns from Collingwood, leaving them in debt and at the foot
                 of the table. 

    1988:    Richmond, suffering from rash management and a 'trade war' with other clubs

                 (principally Collingwood) have a huge debt, and create the "Save Our Skins"

                 campaign to fight off death.

    1990:    Footscray fight back against a merger with Fitzroy and survive (even though Ross

                 Oakley wasn't merged into outer space).

    1994:    Further financial troubles around Fitzroy.

    1995:    St. Kilda launch the "save our Saints" campaign.

    1996:    A proposed merger between Melbourne and Hawthorn is rejected, after both
                 teams struggled with debt and low membership levels. 

    1996:    The Fitzroy fight for survival finally ends after 100 seasons, and they 'merge' with 

                 the Brisbane Bears to form the Brisbane Lions.

That period must be the most de-stabilizing to the VFL/AFL competition in its history, with at least eight clubs suffering debt crises at some time (tell me if I missed any or got the years wrong). 

So, let's look at when these blowouts began rising and peaked (see the main chart here), and I will choose the period from 1973 (the year the '10 Year Rule' was introduced and retracted*) until now. Looking at that specific time, and overlaying the troubles above, yields the below chart.

Click to Expand

What is also noticeable is that there is an arrest in the growth of blowout games** from 1996 onward (for about 15 years), which may be related to the end of the turmoil of mergers and financial crises, the declared support of the 16 team structure by AFL HQ, and the generally improved fiscal management of the clubs and league itself.

What I haven't considered so much is exactly what is being paid to players... and whether third party deals or even breaches (known or unknown) are also skewing teams performances.

The Reduced Talent Pool

The main idea behind the Demetriou 'new teams = blowout games' theory is based on the idea that adding new teams reduces the talent pool and lowers the playing standard. This  also, doesn't stack up so clearly

Firstly from the above, adding a new team (and say 40 senior list players) does not necessarily create a higher chance of blow-outs.
- 1987 introduced both the West Coast and Brisbane Bears, and there were less blowouts than the previous 2 seasons.
- 1991 brought Adelaide with less blowouts than the previous season.
- 1995 brought Fremantle into the competition, with less blowouts than 4 of the previous 5 seasons.
Port Adelaide's entry in 1997 also saw the exit (via merger, if you like) of Fitzroy. That season, and the next two, were more even and balanced than 14 of the previous 15 seasons.


Final Proposition
So, I would think that with the above, you could offer a position that clubs financial strengths has an impact on performance. This was manifested in the 80's and 90's via general club financial problems, and in the recent era in the power to spend off-field and in the back rooms, to build on-field strength.
You can buy yourself an AFL premiership, even in the age of the salary cap and draft.

Let me know if I am wrong, or have missed something.


* What a great moment in VFL/AFL history the '10 Year Rule' was. Introduced as a kind of free-agency policy to allow players with 10 (or more) years service to transfer to a club of their choice, usually for an inflated fee. It caused such ructions and player movement that it was rescinded early the following year over concerns about ballooning payments and clubs wage-payment pressures. Additional player payment and recruitment detail here, by Ross Booth (pdf). 


** You could point to seasons 2000 and 2001 as exceptions, but looking at the raw data shows higher 60 and 80 point losses, but only a few losses over 100 points. To me, the dark yellow and red results are the key problem areas.

Blow-out Me Down With A Feather.

The 2011 AFL season was the most lopsided in the history of the competition. The number of blowout games (on most measures by margins), and also by ladder percentage disparity (since 1970, when a 22 week home and away season became the norm). I don't put this down to the start of the Gold Coast Suns, but to that commodity every team, and everyone else, wants more of.

I had tweeted about this during the season, with charts etc, but I felt it also warranted further study and analysis. It may be that I have also found a possible root cause... more on that in the next post though.


The Blow-outs Of The Season.
There was a lot of media chatter about the 2011 season, particularly the blow-out games that have been posted in the back-half of the season. It all really fired up after this result:
        30/7/2011:   Kardinia Park  - Geelong  37. 11. 233  def  Melbourne  7. 5. 47

The aftermath of course brought the downfall of Dean Bailey, and an apparent push by the leading clubs to 'fly the flag' and post huge scores against lowly clubs as well. Which may have been the impetus for these results:

       06/8/2011:   Football Park  - Port Adelaide  3. 3. 21  def by  Collingwood  23. 21. 159

       06/8/2011:   Kardinia Park  - Geelong  29. 14. 188  def  Gold Coast  6. 2. 38 

All of this brought out talk (and tweets) about how blowouts were a big problem for the AFL, which His Andrew-ness said was an over-reaction (ABC News).

         "I just think they are a very rare occurrence," he said .... "We always knew that the

         Gold Coast would have a couple of largish results ... I don't think it's one that requires

         a crisis meeting and hysteria."

          - Andrew Demetriou: Aug 10 2011.

The following week, despite the head-honcho's assurances that massive blow-outs were rare, brought another belting (or big-club-showing-it-could-also-beat-up-a-lowly-club... read that as you will) 
       13/8/2011:   M. C. G.  - Hawthorn  31. 11. 197  def  Port Adelaide  5. 2. 32

So in the space of 3 weeks, the AFL served up the incredibly rare event of 4 blowout matches, for a combined scoreline of    120. 57. 767  -v-  21. 12. 138    Margin:  629 pts

And of these four, only one was a Gold Coast game... so much for His Andrew-ness's logic. Adding to the increasing rarity of these blowouts was the two earlier +120 point games in 2011 as well:

       01/5/2011:   Docklands  - Essendon  31. 11. 197  def  Gold Coast  8. 10. 58

       22/5/2011:   Subiaco  - West Coast  26. 19. 175  def  Western Bulldogs  8. 4. 52

Which benchmarks this season as the worst season EVER for
   - Margins 60 points and over           46 games
   - Margins 100 points and over         10 games (equal with 1991 season)
   - Margins 120 points and over         6 games (equal with 1991 season)
   - Margins 140 points and over         3 games

To put that in perspective, the chart below shows all results with margins of +60 points since 1897 (broken down into 20 point increments)

Click to expand.

And while this year has set a new high-watermark in un-evenness of the competition, the scoring rate (blue line) remains relatively stable at just around 180 pts scored per game.
Also interesting that the 2011 season has run against the trend of the last 10 years, which had been reasonably consistent.

You could also look to the disparity between teams ladder percentages over the years. Since 1970, when the now standard 22 round season was first introduced, 2011 is again the most unbalanced.

Click to expand.

The chart above shows the Standard Deviation of all teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 31.8, And the net difference between the maximum and minimum teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 111.4%.

     * NOTE: Removing results of games involving the Gold Coast, adjusts this to a Standard Deviation of 30.4, and
     total difference between the maximum and minimum teams scoring percentages in 2011 to be 104.2%. Both of
     these adjusted figures are still record levels.

The Reaction So Far
So has this sent alarm bells ringing down at AFLHQ?
Well, it possibly triggered an internal season review (read as "crisis meeting" if you like), because His Andrew-ness came out at seasons end on Melbourne radio (MTR) to advise that...

         “What will happen you will see more one side affairs, you will see more one sided
          affairs, and western Sydney and Gold Coast suffering big losses as they build their
          team ... It will probably take three years for a correction to happen into the game
          where we get back to much more even games, get back to the pure draft after next
          year ... But for the next couple of years you will see these things that are skewed
          to blowouts"
          - Andrew Demetriou: Sep 28 2011.

...none of which is any surprise to football followers. Thanks, Andrew, for the concession speech, and lets assume this was written up in the Grand Final Edition "Football Record", on page 31, small print, bottom inside corner under the title "We Were Wrong"...?

Or, maybe not.

And to cap it all off, we can expect more in 2012, as

          "The AFL called a press conference yesterday to announce it was making ''no major
          rule changes'' for next year."
          - Sydney Morning Herald: Oct 12 2011.

 It will be interesting to see what happens further both in the off-season and during 2012.
- Will any post-season analysis and review bring up any root cause, or mirror to the past?
- Will AFLHQ read and consider any external opinion and study?
- Is Andrew planning on buying new curtains for the office and hoping it all goes away?


I will post up some ideas on why I think all this has happened and the link to the dollars later.
And also why I don't think this is a result of the arrival of a new team.

Feel free to offer your theories now.

Of Bubbles and Bloods

Elimination Final 2 - St. Kilda -v- Sydney

What was once the 'Lakeside Derby' in now ...the 'St. Kilda to Kings Cross Cup'. Against the Ess-Carl Eliminator, this one is quiet and almost ignored.

A good effort by Longmire to keep the team up to a finals level. Will it really be Ross Lyon's last game as St. Kilda coach...? What money is there being offered to go to the Dees...? 

Does anyone in Sydney know the Swans are in the finals?

Is Seaford really in Melbourne? 

1. St. Kilda
The 'Aints... the poor old 'Aints. If the 2010 Grand Final had have had another 2 minutes, they could have their second flag. But it didn't, and they don't. All they got from the replay was a smacking.
And then there was the 'off field' dramas. The 'bubble' was burst over summer, and the 'Aints were gone. The early season cemented that thought, with 1 win and 1 draw from 7 games... but somehow they stuck it out. Hayes-less, with Riewoldt patchy and Goddard looking like he would rather be elsewhere (Try GWS), they still came back and snuck in to the finals.

Against other top 8 teams, they have the worst record... 2 wins and 8 losses. Beating Carlton maybe helpful, but did the Filth really want to win that one? Maybe... maybe not. They don't even have a good indoor record either (1 win, 3 losses). Overall it doesn't look good, but they have experienced finals players so should make a good fist of it.


2. Sydney
The romance of the Bloods continues. Seemingly in the finals forever (...well, 13 times in the last 16 seasons) and still largely ignored by the people of Sydney. They somehow work some magic and maintain a playing list that pushes them to September. Dour and perhaps the least exciting team in this years 8, but none the less still capable on the day of grinding out a win.

The highlight of the form line is the away win to Geelong. Also at the back half of the year they have had some good wins and close losses .Also equally capable of winning outdoors and on the road. They have only minimal M.C.G. experience which only comes into play later. This first game at Docklands, against the Saints they had beaten a few weeks back.
My tip for the team not in the top 3 to give the finals the biggest shake.  


Verdict:
I get that feeling that the Bloods will push this - and win. Call me an old softy, but the Swans recent off-field tragedy could be the wake-up call.

Eight Teams Out - Redux

With the finals now on for young and old, there is so much 'he-said, she-said' on the air now as to how they will play out. With that in mind, a short review of the past is in order to see who has the mental edge going in.

Re-run the games that mattered.

Top 8 Fixture - click to enlarge

With no disrespect to the bottom 8 teams, lets chuck out any games the top 8 have played against them, and re-work the season into games that only those in the top 8 played. This then gives all the results as per the (clickable) table at right.

This reduces the games of significance down to 39, with a few teams having played other top 8 teams 11 times, and others as little as 8 games. This is purely a function of the AFL draw and its obvious problem of not being able to schedule all teams to play each other home and away.



Re-work the ladder to reflect head-to-head form.
The current 8 lists out as below (PS: AFL, when did Geelong become Geelong Cats...?);

Courtesy: AFL website

Re-working the 8 to count only those games played amongst themselves yields the below;

Adjusted 8: only games between top 8 finishers

The above is an interesting shift in thinking about the 8, with a boost to Essendon and Sydney over Carlton, West Coast and St. Kilda.

Re-work that to compensate for 'games played'.
The above though is still not a fair representation as there is an imbalance in the games played (i.e. Essendon have had 4 wins from 11 tries vs. West coast 3 wins from 8 opportunities). To re-dress that, we pull out the old AFL favourite 'match ratio'. This also boosts Sydney's stocks, as well as reinforcing that Carlton and St. Kilda have little form against other top 8 teams.

Adjusted 8: only games between top 8 finishers, factoring for 'match ratio'

But, which ever way you cut it... the premiership is still Collingwood's to lose, with the only true outside chances to be the Cats and the Hawks. You should also be wary of West Coast and Sydney, as if they get a home final, they could go further than most would credit.

In the next day or so, I will look at the form of each team in the 8 on a head-to-head basis.