Broncos The Best Team In Nrl History, (***READ ON***)

[kimlo_]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/spo...016527,00.html
By Ray Chesterton | March 27, 2008 11:00pm

THE envelope please . . . and the winner of the centurion award as the most successful rugby league club in the past 100 years is . . . wait for it . . . Brisbane.
What? Hang on. How did that happen? They only turned up five minutes ago and now they're the best team in the past century?
Has someone's common sense been impaired in an as-yet-unpublished nightclub incident?
I'd blame the judges, except I was one of them and there were only two.
It came about because in rugby league's centenary year, everything else that can possibly be converted into a "best in 100 years" theme has been.
We've had the best pictures in 100 years, best headlines, best stories, best players, best games, best things in life are free, the best thing since sliced bread and best of both worlds.
No cliche has been left unturned or injured in compiling this mathematical logarithm so the cacophony about the century can continue. So why not the best club?
Colleague David Middleton, the best numbers man since Al Capone was running the rackets, and I put together a formula to equalise as much as possible the overall contribution of all clubs irrespective of their varying fortunes and involvement in the premiership.
So foundation clubs from 1908 such as Souths, Norths, Easts, Wests and Balmain got the same consideration as newcomers such as Brisbane, Canberra, Penrith and Cronulla.
We also only counted statistics from St George, Illawarra, Balmain and Wests while they were stand-alone clubs.
It might have been a little subjective - what survey involving opinions isn't? - but it's not quite at the level of polls that said John Howard would retain Bennelong.
I do concede that if I'd realised Brisbane would be No. 1 it would have been a hell of a lot more subjective.
The 33 clubs who have played under the NSWRL, ARL, Super League and NRL banners since 1908 were rated 1-33.
Five categories were involved: overall winning percentage; premiership longevity; premierships won and years in competition; finals series contested and years in the premiership; and the number of internationals produced. Each category received equal weighting.
Obviously there are extraordinary one-off circumstances. Souths have won 20 premierships - more than any other club.
St George won a record 11 grand finals in a row. Brisbane have won six premierships in 20 years.
The Warriors produced the most internationals (45 since 1995) but it is misleading because they are the major player resource for the New Zealand national team.
It all went into the mix.
The results of the categories turned out like this.
Best winning percentage: Brisbane 64 per cent; Melbourne 61 per cent.
Premierships won and years in competition: Brisbane six in 20 years; Souths 20 in 98 years.
Most times in finals: Broncos 17 in 20 years; Melbourne eight in 10.
Longevity: Easts 100 seasons in 100 years; Souths 98 seasons in 100 years.
Most internationals produced: Warriors 45 since 1995; Newcastle four in two years (1908-09); Easts 73 in 100 years; Souths 62 in 98 years; St George 49 in 78 years.
The overall top 10 were: Brisbane, St George, Easts, Melbourne, Souths, Manly, Canberra, Newcastle, Canterbury, Balmain.
If you think it's a brilliantly compiled analysis of pinpoint accuracy that would do credit to Sir Isaac Newton, I thank you for the kind words.
Alternatively, if you think it is the brainchild of someone with a weakening grip on reality, ring Middo.
If nothing else, it is something to talk about in the pub.

Brisbane the best team every WOOOHOOOO BEAT THAT! :D :D :D

 

[spoonbled]

well i could have told you that.

i guess if you work out what Brisbane has done in 2o years not many teams can compete with that.

 

[renouf]

We've been the most consistent team for the last 20 years, we don't deserve to be he the 'best team in history' though

 

[kimlo_]

I think we do, lets look at it from a different perspective, how many teams have done what the broncs have done in their first 20 years.

 

[Ari Gold]

I think we do, lets look at it from a different perspective, how many teams have done what the broncs have done in their first 20 years.

South Sydney and Balmain for a start eusa_think

 

[kimlo_]

How many teams were in the competition then? Secondly, these days it's a known fact that the competition is SO much harder, I'd like see anyone winning 3 competitions in a row let alone 11 (ala St George). These days the competition is tougher, and what broncos have achieved in such a tight competition where point differential was the difference between making or breaking the 8 is nothing short of amazing, same as to melbourne.

 

[Webcke]

Didn't we all ready know this?

 

[spoonbled]

I think we do, lets look at it from a different perspective, how many teams have done what the broncs have done in their first 20 years.

South Sydney and Balmain for a start eusa_think

how many grand finals have Balmian won???

 

[Ari Gold]

I think we do, lets look at it from a different perspective, how many teams have done what the broncs have done in their first 20 years.

South Sydney and Balmain for a start eusa_think

how many grand finals have Balmian won???

10 or 11 I think, but they had won 6 in their first 20 years.

 

[kimlo_]

How many sides were back then? and was their genuinely 5 or 6 teams who could win the comp like now a days? Back in those days there was at most 3 sides who could genuinely contest the tille. St george got 11 in a row............ Theres gotta be something rigged or a complete lack of competition for that to happen.

 

[Herron]

The whole article reads tongue-in-cheek (which is a good change) so I hope people don't get too fired up over it. They just made some whacky formula and entered the data.