AFL Insights

2026 season

Premiership Window

Current-season contender profiles compared with the traits of recent premiers.

As of Round 24 High confidence

At a glance

State of the premiership race

In the Window Fremantle, Sydney Teams above the 85+ recent-premier band.
Next group Hawthorn, Brisbane Lions, Geelong, Adelaide Contenders and fringe teams in striking distance.
Biggest riser No rank movement No team moved up since the previous run.
Biggest faller No rank movement No team dropped since the previous run.
Best profile match Adelaide Closest recent-premier shape: 2024 Brisbane Lions (90%).
Watch team Adelaide Needs to hold its strongest current premier traits while keeping existing strengths intact.

Movement this run

Who shifted, and why

Moved up No rank riser No team climbed the ranking this run.
Moved down No rank faller No team dropped in the ranking this run.
Band changes None No team entered or left a contender band.
Steadiest contender Fremantle rank and score steady: the profile barely moved.

Contender ladder

Flag Window Score

An explainable score built from historical premier traits, current results, team style, and depth signals.

Rank Team Band Score Movement Run home Snapshot reason
1
Fremantle FRE
In the Window 88.7 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path; watch bottom six
2
Sydney SYD
In the Window 86.9 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path; watch bottom six
3
Hawthorn HAW
Contender 83.1 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending true form; short on scoring
4
Brisbane Lions BRL
Contender 82.6 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path; short on defence
5
Geelong GEE
Fringe Contender 72.3 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending percentage; short on lower-side reliability
6
Adelaide ADE
Fringe Contender 69.4 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending defence; short on scoring
7
Melbourne MEL
Outside Looking In 58.1 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending defence blocker
8
Collingwood COL
Outside Looking In 45.3 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
9
Carlton CAR
Not in the Window 42.8 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
10
Western Bulldogs WBD
Not in the Window 41.5 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending percentage blocker
11
St Kilda STK
Not in the Window 31.7 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
12
GWS GWS
Not in the Window 26.2 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
13
Gold Coast GCS
Not in the Window 21.5 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
14
North Melbourne NTH
Not in the Window 12.5 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
15
Port Adelaide PORT
Not in the Window 8.2 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
16
Essendon ESS
Not in the Window 0.0 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
17
Richmond RIC
Not in the Window 0.0 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker
18
West Coast WCE
Not in the Window 0.0 unchanged / 0.0 Path pending ladder path blocker

Visual read

Offence/defence profile

The full ranked score sits above; this view shows whether a side has the balanced profile recent premiers usually carry.

Balanced premier shape

Right is stronger scoring. Higher is stronger defence. Larger logos have stronger overall Flag Window scores.

Opening Round
Scoring strength Defensive strength
Recent premier range Chasing Outside
Fremantle #1 / In the Window

Their ladder position gives them a genuine finals path and the main watch is bottom-six output is below the benchmark.

Score 88.7 unchanged, 0.0 9 met / 1 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Fremantle sit in the window at 88.7/100, ranked #1. They have 9 recent-premier traits met and 1 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The ladder position gives them the usual premier runway (1.0, ranked 1st).
  • Their percentage points to a balanced contender profile (137.2, ranked 1st).
  • They are putting enough space on games week to week (27.0, ranked 2nd).

Why they might fall short

  • The bottom-six output is still below the benchmark (48.6, ranked 15th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs cleaner weeks from the bottom six while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Get cleaner, more reliable weeks from the bottom six.
  • Reduce turnover burden from regular players.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality met 1.0, rank 1st
Strong percentage met 137.2, rank 1st
Margin dominance met 27.0, rank 2nd
Top-tier scoring met 99.4, rank 5th
Elite defence met 72.4, rank 1st
Strong true-form rating met 1.3, rank 7th
Record vs strong teams met 82%, rank 1st
Beats lower-ranked sides met 83%, rank 7th
Travels well met 67%, rank 2nd
Bottom-six quality missing 48.6, rank 15th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2023 Collingwood (85%).

Strong: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Missing: Bottom-six quality

Context / caveats

  • 3 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

3 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.5 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 48.6 Stability 93%

Flagged regulars: Mason Cox, Isaiah Dudley, Alex Pearce

Sydney #2 / In the Window

Their ladder position gives them a genuine finals path and the main watch is bottom-six output is below the benchmark.

Score 86.9 unchanged, 0.0 8 met / 1 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Sydney sit in the window at 86.9/100, ranked #2. They have 8 recent-premier traits met and 1 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The ladder position gives them the usual premier runway (2.0, ranked 2nd).
  • They are putting enough space on games week to week (29.3, ranked 1st).
  • Their percentage points to a balanced contender profile (136.1, ranked 2nd).

Why they might fall short

  • The bottom-six output is still below the benchmark (49.0, ranked 14th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs cleaner weeks from the bottom six while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Get cleaner, more reliable weeks from the bottom six.
  • Reduce turnover burden from regular players.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality met 2.0, rank 2nd
Strong percentage met 136.1, rank 2nd
Margin dominance met 29.3, rank 1st
Top-tier scoring met 110.6, rank 1st
Elite defence met 81.3, rank 3rd
Strong true-form rating met 2.6, rank 4th
Record vs strong teams partial 44%, rank 6th
Beats lower-ranked sides met 100%, rank 2nd
Travels well met 64%, rank 3rd
Bottom-six quality missing 49.0, rank 14th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2023 Collingwood (74%).

Strong: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Missing: Bottom-six quality

Context / caveats

  • 3 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

3 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.6 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 49.0 Stability 89%

Flagged regulars: Will Edwards, Joel Amartey, Malcolm Rosas

Hawthorn #3 / Contender

True form backs them up, but scoring is still short of premier range keeps them short of the top band.

Score 83.1 unchanged, 0.0 9 met / 0 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Hawthorn sit contender at 83.1/100, ranked #3. They have 9 recent-premier traits met and 0 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The true-form read backs up the ladder profile (3.3, ranked 2nd).
  • They are avoiding the poor losses contenders cannot afford (86%, ranked 4th).
  • The bottom of the side is holding up well enough (57.6, ranked 2nd).

Why they might fall short

  • There is no single glaring benchmark miss, but the profile is not complete yet.

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to hold its strongest current premier traits while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Lift offensive output against finals-grade opponents.
  • Reduce turnover burden from regular players.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality met 4.0, rank 4th
Strong percentage met 120.1, rank 5th
Margin dominance met 16.5, rank 5th
Top-tier scoring met 98.3, rank 6th
Elite defence met 81.8, rank 4th
Strong true-form rating met 3.3, rank 2nd
Record vs strong teams partial 44%, rank 5th
Beats lower-ranked sides met 86%, rank 4th
Travels well met 59%, rank 5th
Bottom-six quality met 57.6, rank 2nd

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2017 Richmond (88%).

Strong: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 1 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

1 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.0 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 57.6 Stability 89%

Flagged regulars: Ned Reeves

Brisbane Lions #4 / Contender

Their ladder position gives them a genuine finals path, but too many points are being conceded keeps them short of the top band.

Score 82.6 unchanged, 0.0 9 met / 1 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Brisbane Lions sit contender at 82.6/100, ranked #4. They have 9 recent-premier traits met and 1 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The ladder position gives them the usual premier runway (3.0, ranked 3rd).
  • The true-form read backs up the ladder profile (5.7, ranked 1st).
  • They are putting enough space on games week to week (19.3, ranked 3rd).

Why they might fall short

  • The defensive profile is still leaking too much compared with recent premiers (89.3, ranked 11th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to tighten the defensive profile while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Tighten the defensive profile.
  • Reduce turnover burden from regular players.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality met 3.0, rank 3rd
Strong percentage met 121.7, rank 4th
Margin dominance met 19.3, rank 3rd
Top-tier scoring met 108.7, rank 2nd
Elite defence missing 89.3, rank 11th
Strong true-form rating met 5.7, rank 1st
Record vs strong teams met 44%, rank 4th
Beats lower-ranked sides met 86%, rank 3rd
Travels well met 67%, rank 1st
Bottom-six quality met 54.7, rank 4th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2017 Richmond (77%).

Strong: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Strong true-form rating

Missing: Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 3 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

3 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.4 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 54.7 Stability 92%

Flagged regulars: Darcy Gardiner, Noah Answerth, Ty Gallop

Geelong #5 / Fringe Contender

Percentage is already in the premier range, but dropped games against weaker sides remain costly leaves them in the chasing pack.

Score 72.3 unchanged, 0.0 5 met / 1 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Geelong sit fringe contender at 72.3/100, ranked #5. They have 5 recent-premier traits met and 1 still missing.

Why they can win

  • Their percentage points to a balanced contender profile (122.3, ranked 3rd).
  • They have banked useful proof against strong sides (60%, ranked 2nd).
  • The scoring profile is already in the recent-premier conversation (102.4, ranked 3rd).

Why they might fall short

  • Dropped chances against lower-ranked sides remain a flag-profile problem (69%, ranked 11th).
  • The travelling profile still leaves a question (36%, ranked 11th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to stop giving back games against lower-ranked sides while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Stop giving back games against lower-ranked sides.
  • Build a more reliable away profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality met 5.0, rank 5th
Strong percentage met 122.3, rank 3rd
Margin dominance met 18.7, rank 4th
Top-tier scoring met 102.4, rank 3rd
Elite defence partial 83.7, rank 5th
Strong true-form rating partial 1.3, rank 8th
Record vs strong teams met 60%, rank 2nd
Beats lower-ranked sides partial 69%, rank 11th
Travels well missing 36%, rank 11th
Bottom-six quality partial 51.7, rank 9th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2024 Brisbane Lions (81%).

Strong: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Record vs strong teams

Missing: Travels well

Context / caveats

  • 3 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

3 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.8 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 51.7 Stability 90%

Flagged regulars: Mitchell Edwards, Sam De Koning, Jack Martin

Adelaide #6 / Fringe Contender

The defence is close to September standard, but scoring is still short of premier range leaves them in the chasing pack.

Score 69.4 unchanged, 0.0 6 met / 0 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Adelaide sit fringe contender at 69.4/100, ranked #6. They have 6 recent-premier traits met and 0 still missing.

Why they can win

  • Defensively they already look close to a September side (80.4, ranked 2nd).
  • They are avoiding the poor losses contenders cannot afford (85%, ranked 5th).
  • The bottom of the side is holding up well enough (54.7, ranked 5th).

Why they might fall short

  • There is no single glaring benchmark miss, but the profile is not complete yet.

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to hold its strongest current premier traits while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Lift offensive output against finals-grade opponents.
  • Reduce turnover burden from regular players.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality partial 6.0, rank 6th
Strong percentage met 117.3, rank 6th
Margin dominance met 13.9, rank 6th
Top-tier scoring met 94.3, rank 7th
Elite defence met 80.4, rank 2nd
Strong true-form rating partial -0.1, rank 10th
Record vs strong teams partial 40%, rank 9th
Beats lower-ranked sides met 85%, rank 5th
Travels well partial 55%, rank 8th
Bottom-six quality met 54.7, rank 5th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2024 Brisbane Lions (90%).

Strong: Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence, Beats lower-ranked sides

Context / caveats

  • 1 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

1 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.1 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 54.7 Stability 86%

Flagged regulars: Toby Murray

Melbourne #7 / Outside Looking In

Too many points are being conceded is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 58.1 unchanged, 0.0 3 met / 1 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Melbourne sit outside looking in at 58.1/100, ranked #7. They have 3 recent-premier traits met and 1 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The scoring profile is already in the recent-premier conversation (100.0, ranked 4th).

Why they might fall short

  • The defensive profile is still leaking too much compared with recent premiers (91.3, ranked 13th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to tighten the defensive profile while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Tighten the defensive profile.
  • Reduce turnover burden from regular players.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality partial 7.0, rank 7th
Strong percentage partial 109.6, rank 7th
Margin dominance partial 8.8, rank 7th
Top-tier scoring met 100.0, rank 4th
Elite defence missing 91.3, rank 13th
Strong true-form rating partial 0.6, rank 9th
Record vs strong teams partial 40%, rank 10th
Beats lower-ranked sides met 85%, rank 6th
Travels well met 58%, rank 6th
Bottom-six quality partial 51.8, rank 8th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2024 Brisbane Lions (77%).

Strong: Top-tier scoring, Beats lower-ranked sides, Travels well

Missing: Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 2 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

2 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.2 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 51.8 Stability 90%

Flagged regulars: Latrelle Pickett, Matthew Jefferson

Collingwood #8 / Outside Looking In

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if they are banking the games they should.

Score 45.3 unchanged, 0.0 3 met / 4 missing
Read team profile

Verdict

Collingwood sit outside looking in at 45.3/100, ranked #8. They have 3 recent-premier traits met and 4 still missing.

Why they can win

  • They are avoiding the poor losses contenders cannot afford (100%, ranked 1st).
  • The bottom of the side is holding up well enough (59.8, ranked 1st).

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (9.0, ranked 9th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (2.0, ranked 9th).
  • The true-form read is not yet strong enough for a clear flag profile (-2.4, ranked 13th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Turn narrow results into repeatable margin dominance.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 9.0, rank 9th
Strong percentage partial 102.4, rank 9th
Margin dominance missing 2.0, rank 9th
Top-tier scoring partial 87.9, rank 10th
Elite defence partial 85.8, rank 6th
Strong true-form rating missing -2.4, rank 13th
Record vs strong teams missing 17%, rank 12th
Beats lower-ranked sides met 100%, rank 1st
Travels well met 59%, rank 4th
Bottom-six quality met 59.8, rank 1st

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (75%).

Strong: Beats lower-ranked sides, Travels well, Bottom-six quality

Missing: Top-four quality, Margin dominance, Strong true-form rating, Record vs strong teams

Context / caveats

  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

No regular players are currently flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.6 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 59.8 Stability 89%

Outside the window

Condensed read for the blocked teams

These teams stay on the page, but the repeated ladder-path blocker is kept visually quieter.

Carlton #9 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 42.8 2 met / 4 missing
Open profile

Verdict

Carlton sit not in the window at 42.8/100, ranked #9. They have 2 recent-premier traits met and 4 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (10.0, ranked 10th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (1.3, ranked 10th).
  • Dropped chances against lower-ranked sides remain a flag-profile problem (67%, ranked 12th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Turn narrow results into repeatable margin dominance.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 10.0, rank 10th
Strong percentage partial 101.5, rank 10th
Margin dominance missing 1.3, rank 10th
Top-tier scoring partial 87.3, rank 12th
Elite defence partial 86.0, rank 8th
Strong true-form rating met 1.5, rank 6th
Record vs strong teams partial 41%, rank 8th
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 67%, rank 12th
Travels well missing 46%, rank 10th
Bottom-six quality met 54.3, rank 6th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2019 Richmond (71%).

Strong: Strong true-form rating, Bottom-six quality

Missing: Top-four quality, Margin dominance, Beats lower-ranked sides, Travels well

Context / caveats

  • 1 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

1 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.6 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 54.3 Stability 91%

Flagged regulars: Lewis Young

Western Bulldogs #10 / Not in the Window

Percentage still sits below the benchmark is the blocker, even if true form backs them up.

Score 41.5 1 met / 4 missing
Open profile

Verdict

Western Bulldogs sit not in the window at 41.5/100, ranked #10. They have 1 recent-premier traits met and 4 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The true-form read backs up the ladder profile (2.8, ranked 3rd).

Why they might fall short

  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (95.4, ranked 12th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-4.0, ranked 12th).
  • The defensive profile is still leaking too much compared with recent premiers (86.6, ranked 9th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to improve the combined scoring-and-defence profile while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.
  • Turn narrow results into repeatable margin dominance.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality partial 8.0, rank 8th
Strong percentage missing 95.4, rank 12th
Margin dominance missing -4.0, rank 12th
Top-tier scoring missing 82.7, rank 14th
Elite defence partial 86.6, rank 9th
Strong true-form rating met 2.8, rank 3rd
Record vs strong teams partial 42%, rank 7th
Beats lower-ranked sides partial 77%, rank 8th
Travels well partial 58%, rank 7th
Bottom-six quality missing 48.2, rank 18th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2025 Brisbane Lions (70%).

Strong: Strong true-form rating

Missing: Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Bottom-six quality

Context / caveats

  • 4 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

4 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.0 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 48.2 Stability 87%

Flagged regulars: Will Lewis, Michael Sellwood, Arthur Jones, Jordan Croft

St Kilda #11 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 31.7 0 met / 3 missing
Open profile

Verdict

St Kilda sit not in the window at 31.7/100, ranked #11. They have 0 recent-premier traits met and 3 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (11.0, ranked 11th).
  • The true-form read is not yet strong enough for a clear flag profile (-2.9, ranked 14th).
  • The profile still needs more proof against top-eight opposition (0%, ranked 17th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Sustain stronger form across the next block of matches.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 11.0, rank 11th
Strong percentage partial 102.8, rank 8th
Margin dominance partial 2.4, rank 8th
Top-tier scoring partial 88.3, rank 9th
Elite defence partial 85.8, rank 7th
Strong true-form rating missing -2.9, rank 14th
Record vs strong teams missing 0%, rank 17th
Beats lower-ranked sides partial 71%, rank 10th
Travels well partial 50%, rank 9th
Bottom-six quality partial 49.6, rank 13th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (67%).

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong true-form rating, Record vs strong teams

Context / caveats

  • 2 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

2 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.4 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 49.6 Stability 91%

Flagged regulars: Anthony Caminiti, Liam Ryan

GWS #12 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if they have proof against strong sides.

Score 26.2 2 met / 7 missing
Open profile

Verdict

GWS sit not in the window at 26.2/100, ranked #12. They have 2 recent-premier traits met and 7 still missing.

Why they can win

  • They have banked useful proof against strong sides (50%, ranked 3rd).
  • The bottom of the side is holding up well enough (55.9, ranked 3rd).

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (12.0, ranked 12th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (98.9, ranked 11th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-1.0, ranked 11th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 12.0, rank 12th
Strong percentage missing 98.9, rank 11th
Margin dominance missing -1.0, rank 11th
Top-tier scoring partial 90.1, rank 8th
Elite defence missing 91.1, rank 12th
Strong true-form rating missing -1.0, rank 12th
Record vs strong teams met 50%, rank 3rd
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 38%, rank 14th
Travels well missing 18%, rank 15th
Bottom-six quality met 55.9, rank 3rd

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (58%).

Strong: Record vs strong teams, Bottom-six quality

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Elite defence, Strong true-form rating

Context / caveats

  • 1 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

1 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.7 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 55.9 Stability 89%

Flagged regulars: Callum Brown

Gold Coast #13 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if true form backs them up.

Score 21.5 1 met / 7 missing
Open profile

Verdict

Gold Coast sit not in the window at 21.5/100, ranked #13. They have 1 recent-premier traits met and 7 still missing.

Why they can win

  • The true-form read backs up the ladder profile (2.3, ranked 5th).

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (13.0, ranked 13th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (94.5, ranked 13th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-5.1, ranked 13th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 13.0, rank 13th
Strong percentage missing 94.5, rank 13th
Margin dominance missing -5.1, rank 13th
Top-tier scoring partial 87.4, rank 11th
Elite defence missing 92.5, rank 14th
Strong true-form rating met 2.3, rank 5th
Record vs strong teams missing 8%, rank 15th
Beats lower-ranked sides partial 73%, rank 9th
Travels well missing 25%, rank 14th
Bottom-six quality missing 48.6, rank 16th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2019 Richmond (52%).

Strong: Strong true-form rating

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Elite defence, Record vs strong teams

Context / caveats

  • 5 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

5 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

15.5 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 48.6 Stability 89%

Flagged regulars: Ben Long, Ethan Read, Jed Walter, Oscar Adams, Ben King

North Melbourne #14 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 12.5 0 met / 8 missing
Open profile

Verdict

North Melbourne sit not in the window at 12.5/100, ranked #14. They have 0 recent-premier traits met and 8 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (14.0, ranked 14th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (88.8, ranked 14th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-10.6, ranked 14th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 14.0, rank 14th
Strong percentage missing 88.8, rank 14th
Margin dominance missing -10.6, rank 14th
Top-tier scoring partial 84.0, rank 13th
Elite defence missing 94.6, rank 15th
Strong true-form rating missing -0.3, rank 11th
Record vs strong teams missing 10%, rank 13th
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 62%, rank 13th
Travels well missing 27%, rank 12th
Bottom-six quality partial 50.5, rank 10th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2024 Brisbane Lions (47%).

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Elite defence, Strong true-form rating

Context / caveats

  • 1 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

1 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.5 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 50.5 Stability 92%

Flagged regulars: Charlie Comben

Port Adelaide #15 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 8.2 0 met / 9 missing
Open profile

Verdict

Port Adelaide sit not in the window at 8.2/100, ranked #15. They have 0 recent-premier traits met and 9 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (15.0, ranked 15th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (88.0, ranked 15th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-10.7, ranked 15th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 15.0, rank 15th
Strong percentage missing 88.0, rank 15th
Margin dominance missing -10.7, rank 15th
Top-tier scoring missing 78.4, rank 15th
Elite defence missing 89.0, rank 10th
Strong true-form rating missing -4.3, rank 15th
Record vs strong teams missing 20%, rank 11th
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 38%, rank 15th
Travels well missing 27%, rank 13th
Bottom-six quality partial 49.9, rank 12th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (46%).

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 4 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

4 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

16.8 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 49.9 Stability 89%

Flagged regulars: Jacob Wehr, Dante Visentini, Corey Durdin, Jack Whitlock

Essendon #16 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 0.0 0 met / 10 missing
Open profile

Verdict

Essendon sit not in the window at 0.0/100, ranked #16. They have 0 recent-premier traits met and 10 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (18.0, ranked 18th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (64.6, ranked 17th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-38.1, ranked 17th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 18.0, rank 18th
Strong percentage missing 64.6, rank 17th
Margin dominance missing -38.1, rank 17th
Top-tier scoring missing 69.6, rank 17th
Elite defence missing 107.7, rank 18th
Strong true-form rating missing -8.8, rank 17th
Record vs strong teams missing 9%, rank 14th
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 8%, rank 18th
Travels well missing 0%, rank 18th
Bottom-six quality missing 48.2, rank 17th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (12%).

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 4 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

4 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

14.6 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 48.2 Stability 86%

Flagged regulars: Lachlan Blakiston, Archer Day-Wicks, Isaac Kako, Ben McKay

Richmond #17 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 0.0 1 met / 9 missing
Open profile

Verdict

Richmond sit not in the window at 0.0/100, ranked #17. They have 1 recent-premier traits met and 9 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (17.0, ranked 17th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (62.5, ranked 18th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-38.7, ranked 18th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 17.0, rank 17th
Strong percentage missing 62.5, rank 18th
Margin dominance missing -38.7, rank 18th
Top-tier scoring missing 64.5, rank 18th
Elite defence missing 103.2, rank 17th
Strong true-form rating missing -5.5, rank 16th
Record vs strong teams missing 0%, rank 16th
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 23%, rank 17th
Travels well missing 8%, rank 16th
Bottom-six quality met 53.2, rank 7th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (18%).

Strong: Bottom-six quality

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 3 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

3 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

16.8 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 53.2 Stability 87%

Flagged regulars: Tom Lynch, Mykelti Lefau, Steely Green

West Coast #18 / Not in the Window

The ladder path is too hard from here is the blocker, even if the scoring profile is strong enough.

Score 0.0 0 met / 9 missing
Open profile

Verdict

West Coast sit not in the window at 0.0/100, ranked #18. They have 0 recent-premier traits met and 9 still missing.

Why they can win

  • No major recent-premier scoring signal has separated yet.

Why they might fall short

  • The ladder position leaves too much work to do from here (16.0, ranked 16th).
  • The percentage has not yet reached the usual premier benchmark (69.2, ranked 16th).
  • They are not creating enough scoreboard separation yet (-31.2, ranked 16th).

What needs to happen next

  • Needs to bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path while keeping existing strengths intact. No remaining fixture block is loaded, so the path read stays context-only.
  • Bank wins quickly enough to improve the finals path.
  • Lift the combined scoring-and-defence profile.

Movement since last run

Score 0.0 Rank unchanged Band unchanged

Score and rank are essentially unchanged since the previous run.

Premiership trait checklist

Top-four quality missing 16.0, rank 16th
Strong percentage missing 69.2, rank 16th
Margin dominance missing -31.2, rank 16th
Top-tier scoring missing 70.2, rank 16th
Elite defence missing 101.4, rank 16th
Strong true-form rating missing -9.2, rank 18th
Record vs strong teams missing 0%, rank 18th
Beats lower-ranked sides missing 29%, rank 16th
Travels well missing 8%, rank 17th
Bottom-six quality partial 50.0, rank 11th

Historical profile match

Closest recent-premier shape: 2016 Western Bulldogs (14%).

Missing: Top-four quality, Strong percentage, Margin dominance, Top-tier scoring, Elite defence

Context / caveats

  • 3 regular player(s) flagged as output-and-clanger risks.
  • Clanger burden is high enough to watch under finals pressure.

Consistency/depth watch

3 regular player(s) are flagged by the weak-output/high-clanger proxy.

16.9 clangers per 100 disposals Bottom six 50.0 Stability 90%

Flagged regulars: Bo Allan, Cooper Duff-Tytler, Jobe Shanahan

Benchmark and profile match

How the contenders compare with recent premiers

Scored premier traits

  • Top-four qualityweight 13 · median premier rank 3rd
  • Strong percentageweight 10 · median premier rank 3rd
  • Margin dominanceweight 10 · median premier rank 3rd
  • Top-tier scoringweight 7 · median premier rank 5th
  • Elite defenceweight 9 · median premier rank 3rd
  • Strong true-form ratingweight 10 · median premier rank 5th
  • Record vs strong teamsweight 7 · median premier rank 3rd
  • Beats lower-ranked sidesweight 4 · median premier rank 5th
  • Travels wellweight 4 · median premier rank 3rd
  • Bottom-six qualityweight 3 · median premier rank 5th

Current teams matching most traits

  • Fremantle9 traits / In the Window
  • Hawthorn9 traits / Contender
  • Brisbane Lions9 traits / Contender
  • Sydney8 traits / In the Window
  • Adelaide6 traits / Fringe Contender

Common red flags

  • Ladder position: worse than 7th.
  • Defence: worse than 6th.
  • Away record: worse than 6th.
  • Percentage: worse than 8th.
  • Average margin: worse than 8th.
  • Record against top eight: worse than 9th.

Model blind spots

  • 2016 Western BulldogsOutlier finals run with availability context the model cannot fully score.
  • 2024 Brisbane LionsLate-season/finals form case with some profile timing hidden by season aggregates.

Oddity explanations

Why the model missed

Clues that help explain outlier premiers without changing the score.

2016

Western Bulldogs

They were not a normal home-and-away premier profile, but close-game strength and a major finals free-kick swing help explain the flag run.

Opponent-adjusted defence opponent-adjusted points against: -15.5, ranked 3rd; useful context for the defensive base.
Late-season surge not visible Final-eight home-and-away profile was not a premier-strength signal: win rate: 62%, ranked 8th and opponent-adjusted margin: -3.3, ranked 11th; this does not explain the flag by itself.
Territory profile Forward territory was competitive but not dominant: inside 50s: 54.0, ranked 7th and marks inside 50: 11.3, ranked 14th.
Travel/path context interstate win rate: 60%, ranked 6th; useful once the finals path is known.
Close-game record close-game win rate: 83%, ranked 2nd; historically volatile, so it stays explanatory only.
Finals umpiring swing Post-season context: the Bulldogs won the finals free-kick count 79-48, including 20-8 in the Grand Final. This explains part of the run without becoming a score input.
2024

Brisbane Lions

Their full-season profile sat just below the best shapes, but late-season strength and opponent-adjusted defence were useful clues.

Opponent-adjusted defence opponent-adjusted points against: -7.6, ranked 3rd; useful context for the defensive base.
Late-season strength Final-eight home-and-away profile: win rate: 75%, ranked 3rd and opponent-adjusted margin: 16.2, ranked 4th.
Territory profile Forward territory indicators were inside 50s: 57.0, ranked 2nd and marks inside 50: 12.9, ranked 4th.
Travel/path context interstate win rate: 59%, ranked 7th; useful once the finals path is known.
Finals exposure Previous three seasons: 8 finals, 4 wins, 3 campaigns and 3 prelim/Grand Final games. This is club-level context, not player availability.
Close-game record close-game win rate: 58%, ranked 5th; historically volatile, so it stays explanatory only.

Benchmark metrics

Recent premier traits

Ladder position 2.9 median rank 3
Percentage 126.8 median rank 3
Average margin 18.7 median rank 3
Scoring 89.9 median rank 5
Defence 71.2 median rank 3
True Form 2.4 median rank 5
Record against top eight 61% median rank 3
Reliability against bottom ten 81% median rank 5
Away record 69% median rank 3
Bottom-six quality 53.0 median rank 5

Team metrics

Compare with premier average

Ladder position 1.0 1st
Percentage 137.2 1st
Average margin 27.0 2nd
Scoring 99.4 5th
Defence 72.4 1st
True Form 1.3 7th
Record against top eight 82% 1st
Reliability against bottom ten 83% 7th
Away record 67% 2nd
Bottom-six quality 48.6 15th

Historical validation

What the back-test says

Premier top-four rate 9/11 Leave-one-season-out
Premier contender-band rate 9/11 In the Window or Contender
Main miss seasons 2016 Western Bulldogs (rank 7), 2024 Brisbane Lions (rank 5)
Season-by-season validation detail
Season Premier Existing rank LOO rank LOO score shift Classification
2015 Hawthorn 2 2 -0.2 In the Window to In the Window
2016 Western Bulldogs 7 7 -3.2 Fringe Contender to Fringe Contender
2017 Richmond 3 3 -0.5 Contender to Contender
2018 West Coast 2 2 -0.1 In the Window to In the Window
2019 Richmond 4 4 -0.9 In the Window to Contender
2020 Richmond 3 3 -0.1 In the Window to In the Window
2021 Melbourne 1 1 -0.2 In the Window to In the Window
2022 Geelong 1 1 0.0 In the Window to In the Window
2023 Collingwood 1 1 -0.6 In the Window to In the Window
2024 Brisbane Lions 4 5 -2.4 Contender to Fringe Contender
2025 Brisbane Lions 3 3 -0.8 Contender to Contender
Season Premier Model rank Score Window Top five Helped Hurt False positives
2015 Hawthorn 2 92 In the Window 1. West Coast (93) 2. Hawthorn (92) 3. Sydney (85) 4. Fremantle (82) 5. Richmond (81) Percentage 1st Average margin 1st Scoring 1st Defence 1st Record against top eight 1st No major scored miss West Coast (In the Window)
2016 Western Bulldogs 7 66 Fringe Contender 1. Sydney (96) 2. Geelong (92) 3. GWS (85) 4. Hawthorn (82) 5. Adelaide (80) Defence 3rd Bottom-six quality 4th Away record 6th Reliability against bottom ten 7th Percentage 7th True Form 10th Sydney (In the Window) Geelong (In the Window) GWS (In the Window) Hawthorn (Contender) Adelaide (Contender)
2017 Richmond 3 85 Contender 1. Adelaide (93) 2. Sydney (86) 3. Richmond (85) 4. Geelong (84) 5. Port Adelaide (79) True Form 2nd Ladder position 3rd Reliability against bottom ten 3rd Defence 3rd Percentage 4th No major scored miss Adelaide (In the Window) Sydney (In the Window)
2018 West Coast 2 86 In the Window 1. Richmond (90) 2. West Coast (86) 3. Hawthorn (85) 4. Melbourne (77) 5. Geelong (74) Ladder position 2nd Record against top eight 3rd Percentage 4th Average margin 4th Away record 4th No major scored miss Richmond (In the Window)
2019 Richmond 4 85 In the Window 1. Geelong (94) 2. Collingwood (89) 3. Brisbane Lions (88) 4. Richmond (85) 5. GWS (74) Reliability against bottom ten 2nd Ladder position 3rd Record against top eight 3rd Away record 3rd Defence 4th No major scored miss Geelong (In the Window) Collingwood (In the Window) Brisbane Lions (In the Window)
2020 Richmond 3 88 In the Window 1. Port Adelaide (93) 2. Geelong (89) 3. Richmond (88) 4. Brisbane Lions (86) 5. West Coast (66) True Form 1st Defence 2nd Record against top eight 2nd Ladder position 3rd Percentage 3rd No major scored miss Port Adelaide (In the Window) Geelong (In the Window)
2021 Melbourne 1 94 In the Window 1. Melbourne (94) 2. Port Adelaide (89) 3. Brisbane Lions (82) 4. Geelong (82) 5. Sydney (78) Ladder position 1st Defence 1st True Form 1st Record against top eight 1st Away record 1st No major scored miss None ahead of premier
2022 Geelong 1 96 In the Window 1. Geelong (96) 2. Melbourne (88) 3. Sydney (86) 4. Fremantle (77) 5. Collingwood (66) Ladder position 1st Percentage 1st Average margin 1st Record against top eight 1st True Form 2nd No major scored miss None ahead of premier
2023 Collingwood 1 92 In the Window 1. Collingwood (92) 2. Melbourne (88) 3. Brisbane Lions (84) 4. Carlton (74) 5. Port Adelaide (74) Ladder position 1st Percentage 1st Average margin 1st Reliability against bottom ten 1st Away record 1st No major scored miss None ahead of premier
2024 Brisbane Lions 4 76 Contender 1. Port Adelaide (87) 2. Sydney (86) 3. Western Bulldogs (85) 4. Brisbane Lions (76) 5. Hawthorn (75) Defence 2nd Percentage 3rd Average margin 3rd Bottom-six quality 3rd Scoring 5th True Form 10th Port Adelaide (In the Window) Sydney (In the Window) Western Bulldogs (In the Window)
2025 Brisbane Lions 3 82 Contender 1. Geelong (94) 2. Adelaide (92) 3. Brisbane Lions (82) 4. GWS (74) 5. Hawthorn (70) Away record 1st Record against top eight 2nd Ladder position 3rd True Form 3rd Bottom-six quality 5th No major scored miss Geelong (In the Window) Adelaide (In the Window)

Leave-one-season-out season detail

Season Premier Model rank Score Window Top five Helped Hurt False positives
2015 Hawthorn 2 92 In the Window 1. West Coast (93) 2. Hawthorn (92) 3. Sydney (85) 4. Fremantle (82) 5. Richmond (81) Percentage 1st Average margin 1st Scoring 1st Defence 1st Record against top eight 1st No major scored miss West Coast (In the Window)
2016 Western Bulldogs 7 62 Fringe Contender 1. Sydney (96) 2. Geelong (92) 3. GWS (85) 4. Hawthorn (81) 5. Adelaide (79) Defence 3rd Bottom-six quality 4th Away record 6th Reliability against bottom ten 7th True Form 10th Sydney (In the Window) Geelong (In the Window) GWS (In the Window) Hawthorn (Contender) Adelaide (Contender)
2017 Richmond 3 84 Contender 1. Adelaide (93) 2. Sydney (86) 3. Richmond (84) 4. Geelong (84) 5. Port Adelaide (79) True Form 2nd Ladder position 3rd Reliability against bottom ten 3rd Defence 3rd Percentage 4th No major scored miss Adelaide (In the Window) Sydney (In the Window)
2018 West Coast 2 86 In the Window 1. Richmond (90) 2. West Coast (86) 3. Hawthorn (85) 4. Melbourne (77) 5. Geelong (74) Ladder position 2nd Record against top eight 3rd Percentage 4th Average margin 4th Away record 4th No major scored miss Richmond (In the Window)
2019 Richmond 4 84 Contender 1. Geelong (94) 2. Collingwood (88) 3. Brisbane Lions (88) 4. Richmond (84) 5. GWS (73) Reliability against bottom ten 2nd Ladder position 3rd Record against top eight 3rd Away record 3rd Defence 4th No major scored miss Geelong (In the Window) Collingwood (In the Window) Brisbane Lions (In the Window)
2020 Richmond 3 88 In the Window 1. Port Adelaide (93) 2. Geelong (89) 3. Richmond (88) 4. Brisbane Lions (86) 5. West Coast (67) True Form 1st Defence 2nd Record against top eight 2nd Ladder position 3rd Percentage 3rd No major scored miss Port Adelaide (In the Window) Geelong (In the Window)
2021 Melbourne 1 94 In the Window 1. Melbourne (94) 2. Port Adelaide (89) 3. Brisbane Lions (83) 4. Geelong (82) 5. Sydney (78) Ladder position 1st Defence 1st True Form 1st Record against top eight 1st Away record 1st No major scored miss None ahead of premier
2022 Geelong 1 96 In the Window 1. Geelong (96) 2. Melbourne (88) 3. Sydney (86) 4. Fremantle (78) 5. Collingwood (66) Ladder position 1st Percentage 1st Average margin 1st Record against top eight 1st True Form 2nd No major scored miss None ahead of premier
2023 Collingwood 1 92 In the Window 1. Collingwood (92) 2. Melbourne (88) 3. Brisbane Lions (84) 4. Port Adelaide (74) 5. Carlton (74) Ladder position 1st Percentage 1st Average margin 1st Reliability against bottom ten 1st Away record 1st No major scored miss None ahead of premier
2024 Brisbane Lions 5 74 Fringe Contender 1. Port Adelaide (87) 2. Sydney (85) 3. Western Bulldogs (85) 4. Hawthorn (75) 5. Brisbane Lions (74) Defence 2nd Percentage 3rd Average margin 3rd Bottom-six quality 3rd Scoring 5th True Form 10th Port Adelaide (In the Window) Sydney (In the Window) Western Bulldogs (Contender) Hawthorn (Contender)
2025 Brisbane Lions 3 81 Contender 1. Geelong (94) 2. Adelaide (92) 3. Brisbane Lions (81) 4. GWS (73) 5. Hawthorn (70) Away record 1st Record against top eight 2nd Ladder position 3rd True Form 3rd Bottom-six quality 5th No major scored miss Geelong (In the Window) Adelaide (In the Window)
Historical signal report

Finals-specific coverage can be improved by backfilling finals box-score and availability snapshots, then reporting coverage against eligible finalists instead of all team-seasons.

Signal Status Coverage Premier rank Why
Average margin score 100.0% 3.0 Premiers tend to bank wins with enough margin to show repeatable superiority.
Away record score 100.0% 3.0 Finals rarely give every contender a comfortable home-ground path.
Bottom-six quality score 100.0% 5.0 Premiership teams usually get competent weeks from the bottom of the regular side, but V2 keeps this as a light signal.
Defence score 100.0% 3.0 A strong defensive profile is one of the steadier recent premier traits.
Ladder position score 100.0% 3.0 Recent premiers usually finish high enough to earn a forgiving finals path.
Percentage score 100.0% 3.0 Percentage captures scoring and defence together without overfitting one stat.
Record against top eight score 100.0% 3.0 Contenders need evidence against the teams they are likely to see in finals.
Reliability against bottom ten score 100.0% 5.0 Premiership teams usually avoid repeatedly dropping games they should win.
Scoring score 100.0% 5.0 Flag teams normally score well enough to survive finals pressure.
True Form score 100.0% 5.0 The site's form model smooths noisy results into a current power read.
Accuracy context 100.0% 10.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Behinds Per Game context 100.0% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Bounces Per Game context 100.0% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Clangers Per Game context 100.0% 9.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Clangers Per Inside50 context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Clangers per disposal context 100.0% 6.0 Turnover burden is useful context, but this proxy is too noisy to score directly.
Clearances Per Game context 100.0% 9.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Close Win Pct context 100.0% 5.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Contested Marks Per Game context 100.0% 8.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Contested Possessions Per Game context 100.0% 12.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Direct disposal efficiency defer 0.0% The current AFLTables cache exposes clangers and disposals, but not a reliable direct disposal-efficiency field.
Disposals Per Game context 100.0% 8.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Avg Break Days context 33.3% 2.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Avg Opponent Ladder Position context 44.4% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Home Games context 44.4% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Home Share context 44.4% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Interstate Games context 44.4% 7.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Interstate Share context 44.4% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Short Breaks context 44.4% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Top Four Opponent Share context 44.4% 7.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Finals Top Four Opponents context 44.4% 8.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Form Heat context 100.0% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Free Kicks Against Per Game context 100.0% 8.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Free Kicks For Per Game context 100.0% 8.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Goal Assists Per Game context 100.0% 7.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Goals Per Game context 100.0% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Handballs Per Game context 100.0% 10.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Hit Outs Per Game context 100.0% 12.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Home Win Pct context 100.0% 5.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Injury and availability defer Context The site has current availability signals, but historical coverage is not yet complete enough for v1 scoring.
Inside 50S Per Game context 100.0% 2.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Interstate Win Pct context 100.0% 2.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Kicks Per Game context 100.0% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Late Season Avg Margin context 100.0% 5.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Late Season Opponent Adjusted Defence context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Late Season Opponent Adjusted Margin context 100.0% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Late Season Percentage context 100.0% 5.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Late Season Win Pct context 100.0% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Margin volatility context 100.0% 6.0 Wild week-to-week swings are useful context, but historical separation is too weak for scoring.
Market expectation context Context Market prices are useful context but intentionally excluded from the contender score.
Marks Inside 50 Per Game context 100.0% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Marks Per Game context 100.0% 6.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
One Percenters Per Game context 100.0% 8.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Opponent Adjusted Margin context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Opponent Adjusted Points Against context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Played Schedule Strength context 100.0% 13.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Prior 3Yr Deep Finals Games context 100.0% 1.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Prior 3Yr Finals Campaigns context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Prior 3Yr Finals Games context 100.0% 4.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Prior 3Yr Finals Wins context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Rebound 50S Per Game context 100.0% 14.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Recent Selection Stability context 100.0% 10.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Recent Win Pct context 100.0% 5.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Remaining fixture difficulty context Context Useful for explaining the path from here, but current-only fixture outlook is not used to score historical premier traits.
Score Stddev context 100.0% 11.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Selection stability context 100.0% 7.0 Stable regular contributors matter, but historical separation is too small for direct scoring.
Tackles Per Game context 100.0% 12.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Uncontested Possessions Per Game context 100.0% 7.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.
Weak regular share context 100.0% 9.0 Regular weak contributors are a finals caveat, but the historical signal is too noisy for scoring.
Win Pct context 100.0% 3.0 Useful context if coverage and separation remain stable.