Jump to content


Recommended Posts



Posted
8 minutes ago, tiers said:

The only stat that matters is premierships.

And then the doctor said, 'Is the patient alive or dead?" and no further details were required.


Posted (edited)

An interesting stat:

Aside from GC Suns, we have the longest drought with regards to winning a final in back to back years. That occurred between 1987- 1991 and the drought cannot be rectified this year.

I believe Carlton is the next worst - 1999-2001.

#onlymelbournefc

Edited by Bring-Back-Powell
Posted

I'd like to know statistically how many journeys and learnings we've had since our last finals campaign. And have we learnt enough to arrive this year.

  • Like 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I'd like to know statistically how many journeys and learnings we've had since our last finals campaign. And have we learnt enough to arrive this year.

We're not far off. I learned that the other day from Goody, again.

  • Haha 2

Posted
1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

And then the doctor said, 'Is the patient alive or dead?" and no further details were required.

Opinion vs fact. I'll stick with facts. 66 years = zero.

Posted
41 minutes ago, tiers said:

Opinion vs fact. I'll stick with facts. 66 years = zero.

And then the plumber said, "I see the water isn't running.  Don't need to know anything more here."


Posted

Considering the amount of unforseen historical content the AFL has (clearance reports, reserves and Under 19s player information etc...) they could create an amazing historical resource like AFL Tables or AustralianFootball.com if they wanted to. Maybe they could sign up with Ancestry.com or similar to help deliver it.

I said this in the survey but I think they're more interested in whether to put show 50s higher in an earlier column than rebound 50s.

Posted
55 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

Considering the amount of unforseen historical content the AFL has (clearance reports, reserves and Under 19s player information etc...) they could create an amazing historical resource like AFL Tables or AustralianFootball.com if they wanted to. Maybe they could sign up with Ancestry.com or similar to help deliver it.

I said this in the survey but I think they're more interested in whether to put show 50s higher in an earlier column than rebound 50s.

Bloody shame. If we had something as magic as Demonwiki for the whole of the history of the VFL, I reckon I’d just about retire now and spend my days reading old reports

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, tiers said:

Opinion vs fact. I'll stick with facts. 66 years = zero.

I'm confused (regularly), so we won in 1964 + 66 yrs = let me check ... um carry the .... umm ..  credibility factor plus ??? = x..? Correct?

Edited by dworship
Posted
5 hours ago, tiers said:

So knowing why doesn't alter the stats. 66 years still = zero.

 

25 minutes ago, dworship said:

I'm confused (regularly), so we won in 1964 + 66 yrs = let me check ... um carry the .... umm ..  credibility factor plus ??? = x..? Correct?

The clue is "66 = zero", so why not any other number as well?

Also, if 66 = zero then clearly zero must equal sixty-six.  Ergo, We are in the same position 'time since premiership' as Richmond.

Seems about right.

Both clubs are "?" seasons from their next premiership. 


Posted
5 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Bloody shame. If we had something as magic as Demonwiki for the whole of the history of the VFL, I reckon I’d just about retire now and spend my days reading old reports

australianfootball.com is an up and coming site, and if I wasn't so familiar with AFL Tables I'd almost prefer it.

If somebody went through and added match reports from newspapers to the games that would be fantastic, but speaking from experience it's a monster task. 10 years on and there are still some old games with newspaper reports available that I haven't gotten to. Can't imagine how painful it would be to do with 1897 (even 1858) onwards.

Posted
8 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

 

The clue is "66 = zero", so why not any other number as well?

Also, if 66 = zero then clearly zero must equal sixty-six. 

 

Having been at the GF in 1964 my mind is starting to falter. You are correct - it should be 56 years still = zero.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...