Total wins


Journey Man
With the roosters looking like getting their 1000th win in 08 i thought id see where the other teams rank.

Roosters 999/1898
Souths 946/1831
St George 910/1545
Balmain 871/1705
Canterbury 790/1522
Wests 734/1691
Manly 731/1280
Norths 687/1665
Parra 619/1340
Newtown 583/1305
Cronulla 461/950
Penriff 387/935
Canberra 333/625
Brisbane 309/478
Newcastle 244/465
melbourne 140/240
Warriors 135/291
St George/Illawarra 112/213
Cowboys 101/291
Wests Tigers 72/179
Titans 1/3

Incedently the title for most losses goes to the bears with 916
How good are we - we only came into the Comp in 1947, and we already have 3/4 of the Rooters wins, and they were there 40 yrs before us.


Kim Jong Dan
Staff member
Tipping Member
you should exclude any team that has played less than 1000 games to make a satisfactory sample


Journey Man
it will not change the total wins.

To start excluding for % wins you are better off just grouping teams who started at the same time.

ie manly vs Parra


Kim Jong Dan
Staff member
Tipping Member
nah I am talking of a correct sample group

a team that has played only 200 games ahs not had the opportunity to win or lose as many times. As time goes on that margin will increase or decrease.

This is why a sample gorup has to be a minimum of 1000 games!

TO be even more correct you should really say then base it on the first 1000 games only.

But the basic point is if you take the same sample size for each team you WILL get different resutls


UFO Hunter
Your never going to get an accurate comparison. Even by taking just the 1000 games played teams.

There are so many variables throughout a teams history.


Kim Jong Dan
Staff member
Tipping Member
but as it stands the stats are completely useless. At least with the same sample size you will get a more accurate result. statistics will never ever be 100% accurate but as they stand in this example its not even worth reading


Journey Man
very true Flip,

Teams who played in the early days had far different rules, ie local players only etc compared with today. The saints of the 50's and 60's didnt have the salary cap.

and of coarse as Dan says many teams havnt played enough games to get a good sample size. In pure mathamatics its generally a minimum of 2000 for something to be considered statistically true.

Hence why i feel comparing like with like is the closest you can get. All the foundation teams played 80% (newtown) or more of the time together under the same rules etc, manly and parra both started in 47, dogs and saints were a little earler but all of simlilar eras.


Journey Man
Dan they are worth reading for 3 reasons:

1 Manly's total wins for those who would like to know
2 Manly Vs Parra win ratio difference
3 Norths have the most losses


UFO Hunter
The point dan is trying to make is that the longer a team playes the more stable their stats will be.

Take the titans. they currently sit on winning 33.3% of their games. But if they win on the weekend it will change to 50%.

what he's saying is its unfair to judge two teams together when ones stats are not as indicative as a team with more games under their belt.


Journey Man
you said worth reading

and meaningless could be said for many things posted on here.

Flip i agreed with Dans reasoning hence why i said only teams with similar years can be compared to each other.

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
24 18 6 333 42
24 18 6 214 42
24 16 8 168 38
24 16 8 124 38
24 14 9 175 35
24 14 10 122 34
24 13 11 -24 32
24 13 11 -137 32
24 12 12 59 30
24 12 12 13 30
24 12 12 4 30
24 11 12 6 29
24 9 15 -111 24
24 9 15 -126 24
24 7 17 -331 20
24 5 19 -199 16
24 4 20 -290 14
Top Bottom