Jump to content

Dees Most Consecutive Wins?

Wizard of Koz
Wizard of Koz
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Posted

Does anyone know the record? 

 Will beating the 1965 start of 8 or 9 wins which then culminated in norm Smith getting sacked and then falling in a heap for 50 odd years, remove the curse? Here's hoping!

Edited by Wizard of Koz
Grammar

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Love 1
    • Wizard of Koz changed the title to What is the mfc record for most consecutive wins to start a season?
     

    hi Wiz Koz

    a few facts for you from 1965 - we won the first 8 and then only 2 more games in the infamous sacking year which had only 18 rounds.

    We finished 7th in a 12 team comp with a Final Four.

    However, Norm Smith was sacked for only one round and that was Round 13 and not Round 9 which is being talked about on Ch 7 (what would you expect From the Home of Footy)!

    We only won one game from Rounds 9 - 12.

    Let's now look at our big runs and I can confirm AFL Tables:

    • Longest winning streak: 19 games[51]
      Round 15, 1955 vs North Melbourne (MCG) to round 13, 1956 vs Carlton (MCG)

    don't forget we won the last two games last year so we are on a 10-game streak - only 9 to go!

    BTW I wish the Filth had lost yesterday - that has nothing to do with your Q but I can't stand the Filth

     

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Love 2
    • Haha 5

    We won the first 13 games to start the 1956 season finishing the home and away with a 16-2 win-loss record.

  • Quote
    • Like 4
     

    The comments above beg another question.  Seems that there were only 18 games in the regular seasons back then.  Seems strange, given there were 12 teams, and I thought all teams played all opposition teams twice, which would make it a 22 round season.  (Which is where our current 22 round seasons originated.)  Anyone know the story?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
      On 09/05/2021 at 04:00, Vagg said:

    The comments above beg another question.  Seems that there were only 18 games in the regular seasons back then.  Seems strange, given there were 12 teams, and I thought all teams played all opposition teams twice, which would make it a 22 round season.  (Which is where our current 22 round seasons originated.)  Anyone know the story?

    Good Question. Also how did they work out who you played twice in that time period. I doubt they did it the way we do now.

  • Quote
    • Demonland changed the title to Dees Most Consecutive Wins?

      On 09/05/2021 at 04:00, Vagg said:

    The comments above beg another question.  Seems that there were only 18 games in the regular seasons back then.  Seems strange, given there were 12 teams, and I thought all teams played all opposition teams twice, which would make it a 22 round season.  (Which is where our current 22 round seasons originated.)  Anyone know the story?

    think it was originally tied up with fitting in with cricket, sharing same grounds, centre wicket prep etc......only left room for 18 rounds plus 4 weeks of finals.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
      On 09/05/2021 at 04:21, daisycutter said:

    think it was originally tied up with fitting in with cricket, sharing same grounds, centre wicket prep etc......only left room for 18 rounds plus 4 weeks of finals.

    That makes sense.  Thanks!

  • Quote
      On 09/05/2021 at 04:19, Demonland said:

    Good Question. Also how did they work out who you played twice in that time period. I doubt they did it the way we do now.

    iirc it was just a continuous fixed sequence running from year to year

    all games at same time on saturday

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
      On 09/05/2021 at 04:23, daisycutter said:

    iirc it was just a continuous fixed sequence running from year to year

    all games at same time on saturday

    Interesting. A semblance of fairness at least. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    There were 18 game seasons as recently as 1967. There were 20 in 1968 and 1969, then 22 in 1970. (No word on whether ladders prior to 1970 employed a match ratio.)

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Is there a statistician/mathematical genius here who could possibly tell me if there is any difference between being 8-0 in a competition with 18 teams and one with 12 teams?

  • Quote
      On 09/05/2021 at 07:53, Tony Tea said:

    (No word on whether ladders prior to 1970 employed a match ratio.)

    I don't think you'd need a match ratio if there was an even number of teams (12 in this case).

  • Quote
    • Like 1
      On 09/05/2021 at 08:02, hardtack said:

    Is there a statistician/mathematical genius here who could possibly tell me if there is any difference between being 8-0 in a competition with 18 teams and one with 12 teams?

    No

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2

      On 09/05/2021 at 08:26, ManDee said:

    No

    To the first or second part of my question?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
      On 09/05/2021 at 09:49, hardtack said:

    To the first or second part of my question?

    Yes

  • Quote
    • Haha 5

    Sorry Hardtack, couldn't resist. I don't think there is a difference and I don't think there are any mathematical geniuses here.

  • Quote
    • Haha 3
      On 09/05/2021 at 04:00, Vagg said:

    The comments above beg another question.  Seems that there were only 18 games in the regular seasons back then.  Seems strange, given there were 12 teams, and I thought all teams played all opposition teams twice, which would make it a 22 round season.  (Which is where our current 22 round seasons originated.)  Anyone know the story?

    A full home and away season of 22 rounds in a 12 team comp only happened for 17 seasons, 1970-1986. A full home and away occurred earlier in the original 8 team comp and later 10 team (then 9 when University left) comp but from 1925-1969 I don't think there was ever a full home and away season.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    If we win next week the current crop will be equal-second on our all-time consecutive wins tally: 1960 and 1964 being the other times we recorded an 11-win run, with 1955/56 way out ahead with 19 consecutive wins.  

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Shocked 1

    I'll give it a go.

    How many more wins do we need to be equivalent to the 1956 season?

    I won't use team numbers but the number of games played in the season.

    13 out of 18 in 1956

    8 out of 22 in 2021

    Percentages, no just kidding 

    A is number of more wins needed. 

      13/18 = x

      (8+A)/22 = x

    A + 8= (13/18 × 22) 

    A + 8 = 16

      On 09/05/2021 at 08:02, hardtack said:

    Is there a statistician/mathematical genius here who could possibly tell me if there is any difference between being 8-0 in a competition with 18 teams and one with 12 teams?

     So 16 wins in a row from 22 is equivalent to the 13 wins in a row from 18.

    Need another 8 wins in a row to equal the 1956 run.

    Though the first answer "no" is the correct one, to your question. 

    To get to the equivalent of 16 wins out of 18, we need 20 wins and a draw out of the 22, (using same method).

    Edited by kev martin

  • Quote

    I don't think it matters how many teams there are in the competition 18 wins in a row is always better than 17.

    Winning 18 in a row is just as impressive in a 100 team comp as it would be in a 2 team comp, assuming each individual win is a toss of the coin.

    Edited by Chook

  • Quote
    • Like 2
      On 09/05/2021 at 04:00, Vagg said:

    The comments above beg another question.  Seems that there were only 18 games in the regular seasons back then.  Seems strange, given there were 12 teams, and I thought all teams played all opposition teams twice, which would make it a 22 round season.  (Which is where our current 22 round seasons originated.)  Anyone know the story?

    Correct went to a 22 rounds in 1970, so prior to this they played each other once then played the twice the teams from round 1-7 so another compromises Comp

  • Quote
    •  

    Patently unfair at times 

    Two teams - one side could play bottom six twice. Other side may have to play top six twice. 
    fairest was 22 round seasons - with three “Waverly” games each. 
    BTW I don’t think Melbourne Ever played Richmond at Waverley. 

  • Quote
      On 09/05/2021 at 13:28, Chook said:

    I don't think it matters how many teams there are in the competition 18 wins in a row is always better than 17.

    Winning 18 in a row is just as impressive in a 100 team comp as it would be in a 2 team comp, assuming each individual win is a toss of the coin.

    The reason I wondered about the possibility of the number of teams affecting things was that in a 12 team comp, there may be less easybeat teams than in an 18 team comp... so depending on the luck of the draw, it could be easier to string together a large winning streak in an 18 team comp.

  • Quote

    • 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...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • REPORT: Hawthorn

      There was a time during the current Melbourne cycle that goes back to before the premiership when the club was the toughest to beat in the fourth quarter. The Demons were not only hard to beat at any time but it was virtually impossible to get the better them when scores were close at three quarter time. It was only three or four years ago but they were fit, strong and resilient in body and mind. Sadly, those days are over. This has been the case since the club fell off its pedestal about 12 months ago after it beat Geelong and then lost to Carlton. In both instances, Melbourne put together strong, stirring final quarters, one that resulted in victory, the other, in defeat. Since then, the drop off has been dramatic to the point where it can neither pull off victory in close matches, nor can it even go down in defeat  gallantly.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Footscray

      At twenty-four minutes into the third term of the game between the Casey Demons and Footscray VFL at Whitten Oval, the visitors were coasting. They were winning all over the ground, had the ascendancy in the ruck battles and held a 26 point lead on a day perfect for football. What could go wrong? Everything. The Bulldogs moved into overdrive in the last five minutes of the term and booted three straight goals to reduce the margin to a highly retrievable eight points at the last break. Bouyed by that effort, their confidence was on a high level during the interval and they ran all over the despondent Demons and kicked another five goals to lead by a comfortable margin of four goals deep into the final term before Paddy Cross kicked a couple of too late goals for a despondent Casey. A testament to their lack of pressure in the latter stages of the game was the fact that Footscray’s last ten scoring shots were nine goals and one rushed behind. Things might have been different for the Demons who went into the game after last week’s bye with 12 AFL listed players. Blake Howes was held over for the AFL game but two others, Jack Billings and Taj Woewodin (not officially listed as injured) were also missing and they could have been handy at the end. Another mystery of the current VFL system.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Brisbane

      The Demons head back out on the road in Round 10 when they travel to Queensland to take on the reigning Premiers and the top of the table Lions who look very formidable. Can the Dees cause a massive upset? Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 102 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Hawthorn

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Demons loss to the Hawks. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Like
      • 42 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Hawthorn

      Wayward kicking for goal, dump kicks inside 50 and some baffling umpiring all contributed to the Dees not getting out to an an early lead that may have impacted the result. At the end of the day the Demons were just not good enough and let the Hawks run away with their first win against the Demons in 7 years.

        • Like
      • 343 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Hawthorn

      After 3 fantastic week Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award from Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Kade Chandler and Ed Langdon who round out the Top Five. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Sad
        • Love
      • 32 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All