Most disappointing, underachieving lists ever?

[Happy Mastenator]

Cats from '89 - '97. 4 Grand finals in 7 years without a premiership. A number of other heartbreaking finishes too. This period still haunts me. Don't think I'll ever quite get over it no matter happens in the future.

Collingwood 1977 - 1981. 4 Grand Finals (5 if you count the replay in 1977 separately) in 5 years without a Premiership. A number of those were very close loses too from memory.

These are only underperfoming if winning the GF is all that matters (yes i'm aware that is the ulitmate goal).

But, being in multiple GF/Prelims in a span is what you aim for, then you need luck/fortune to win one. It's not easy to win a flag. Are Sains all of a sudden a success if the ball bounces right agains the Pies, or they play 5 monutes more and don't go to a replay?

Cats ran into the tail of an all time Hawks team in 89 and only lost by 6, 92, 94, 95 were West COast and Carlton who were both absolutely stacked.

Underpeforming are teams that should have made prelims/GF's and didn't, or burned out regularly in straight sets.

 

[MisterMarcus]

These are only underperfoming if winning the GF is all that matters (yes i'm aware that is the ulitmate goal).

But, being in multiple GF/Prelims in a span is what you aim for, then you need luck/fortune to win one. It's not easy to win a flag. Are Sains all of a sudden a success if the ball bounces right agains the Pies, or they play 5 monutes more and don't go to a replay?

Cats ran into the tail of an all time Hawks team in 89 and only lost by 6, 92, 94, 95 were West COast and Carlton who were both absolutely stacked.

Underpeforming are teams that should have made prelims/GF's and didn't, or burned out regularly in straight sets.

Yeah....sometimes you're an excellent team but just unfortunate enough to run into another team (or teams) that are better than you.

Cats 89-95 and through most of the 2010s are examples of that.

 

[Consolaçao]

Gold Coast had ten top 6 draft picks (plus Miller and Flanders) playing last night. If they’re not pushing for a flag in the next 2-5 year period, they’ll be right up there.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Gold Coast had ten top 6 draft picks (plus Miller and Flanders) playing last night. If they’re not pushing for a flag in the next 2-5 year period, they’ll be right up there.

I hate to break it to no GC fans, but they are going to have an extended period of dominance, whether they win flags who knows, as they have their academy cranking and will be loading up each year with talent.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

West Coast Eagles 1990-1998.

Should have won minimum 5 flags

 

[Happy Mastenator]

West Coast Eagles 1990-1998.

Should have won minimum 5 flags

Why not 9?

 

[Mat Mann]

This is the part I am questioning - because that specific St Kilda list was a product of its time. I don't think it would be possible to get a list as stacked with top-end talent in the current AFL environment, & as such, it is irrelevant to compare St Kilda's list with any modern side

Had that St Kilda list been built in the modern era, it wouldn't have been quite as replete with the same top-end talent. So yes, maybe on paper they beat Richmond (debatable), but it is nothing more than an academic footnote that does not mean anything

you might want to look at where that top-end talent was drafted, we sure did waste a lot of 1st round picks during that period

 

[ioppolo]

West Coast Eagles 1990-1998.

Should have won minimum 5 flags

Mmm. North, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn could all say the same thing. Somehow Adelaide pinched two in there. Supremely strong era and the unfairness towards non Vic teams was tenfold in the 90s.

 

[Anja_Nees]

Saints ‘04-‘10 would be the most well credentialed in my time not to win a flag (pretty obvious given they drew once and could have won ‘09).

It’s not really close.

The current Brisbane lineup gave themselves a five year window and if they don’t bounce back next year they’d look back with some regret. I don’t think they’re in the same league as the Saints’ lineup above.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Saints ‘04-‘10 would be the most well credentialed in my time not to win a flag (pretty obvious given they drew once and could have won ‘09).

It’s not really close.

The current Brisbane lineup gave themselves a five year window and if they don’t bounce back next year they’d look back with some regret. I don’t think they’re in the same league as the Saints’ lineup above.

That Saints team had some extraordinary top-end talent.....but also had more than a few absolute plodders in the "16th - 22nd Man" range.

If you work on the theory that premierships are won by your Bottom 6 rather than your Top 6, I can see why the Saints never saluted.

 

[Anja_Nees]

The Saints team had some extraordinary top-end talent.....but also had more than a few absolute plodders in the "16th - 22nd Man" range.

If you work on the theory that premierships are won by your Bottom 6 rather than your Top 6, I can see why the Saints never saluted.

Apparently their cap was way out of whack, which makes sense, but most premiership sides have a few plodders.

The fact they came as close as they did suggests it wasn’t that big a deal. From memory as at the time they lost in 2009, there had never been a bigger half time forward 50 entry differential in a side’s favour in history where that side went on to lose.

 

[Soggy2112]

The Saints team had some extraordinary top-end talent.....but also had more than a few absolute plodders in the "16th - 22nd Man" range.

If you work on the theory that premierships are won by your Bottom 6 rather than your Top 6, I can see why the Saints never saluted.

I don’t know how accurate this take is.

2009 the Saints win 22, lose 3 and beat the Cats in the regular season. They lose the GF by 12 despite having more scoring shots.

2010 they win 17, lose 7 and draw 2. They go 1-1 against the pies in the regular season and then draw the GF.

All it takes is a few more 50-50 moments, some in their control and some out, to go their way and they have a premiership or two. On that basis I don’t think it’s fair to say that their bottom 6 weren’t good enough.

 

[Roobs321]

'bottom 6' was invented regarding the 2009 Saints, don't think I'd heard it before then. And their play that year was more coaching strategic innovation than the list, they were so well drilled then and unassailable.