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 May 9, 20214 yr by Wizard of Koz
Grammar

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

 

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

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?

18 minutes ago, 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.

19 minutes ago, 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.

Just now, 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!

2 minutes ago, 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

2 minutes ago, 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. 

1956

15-0

@Anti SaintThanks for a great response. Appreciated.

The same home of football that called james jordon, jordon Jones? Amateurs. 

Edited May 9, 20214 yr by Wizard of Koz

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.)

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?

20 minutes ago, 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).

23 minutes ago, 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

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

No

To the first or second part of my question?

49 minutes ago, hardtack said:

To the first or second part of my question?

Yes

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

7 hours ago, 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.

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.  

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

5 hours ago, 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 May 9, 20214 yr by kev martin

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 May 9, 20214 yr by Chook

9 hours ago, 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

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. 

11 hours ago, 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.