AFL 3 years ago

AFL clubs that #fail on Twitter

  • AFL clubs that #fail on Twitter

Last week I ranked the top eight AFL teams by their performance on Twitter.

Armed with statistics from AFL numbers guru "goalsneaker", I identified the top Twitter teams as Adelaide, Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong, and Richmond.

Today I introduce the bottom ten - the AFL clubs that #fail on Twitter.

You might also like

9. @PAFC

A clear line divided the top eight and bottom ten Twitter teams. Eighth-placed Richmond had 47,000 followers at round one - a 7000-follower break on any club in the bottom ten.

Port Adelaide only had 39,000 followers at round one. Yet the Power ran at the fifth-highest rate of tweets per day, with 11.92. No other club in bottom ten averaged more than 11.20.

10. @WestCoastEagles

The Eagles started 2015 with about 1500 more followers than Port Adelaide but trailed severely in terms of tweets per day. Their average of 8.01 was only fifteenth in the league.

Coincidentally, West Coast joined Twitter on the same day as Richmond: June 23, 2009.

11. @melbournefc

The Demons started 2015 as part of a small bunch of teams with about 30,000 followers.

Their average of 9.41 tweets per day, however, set them ahead of the 'Roos and Saints. They also tweeted 2500 times in the recent off-season - well above the AFL average.

12. @NMFCOfficial

North Melbourne only had the fourteenth-highest follower count at the start of 2015. Yet the club was barely 1000 followers behind St Kilda and Fremantle, with a significantly higher rate of tweets-per-day.

The Kangaroos also deserved a boost for being early adopters. They joined Twitter on February 22, 2009. Only the Swans joined the platform earlier - in December 2008.

13. @stkildafc

The Saints started 2015 in the same 30,000-follower neigbourhood as the Demons and the Kangaroos.

They rated lower for tweets per day than those two clubs, but at least kept out of the bottom four - in this competition, at least.

14. @freodockers

The Dockers started the year with 38,000 followers, more than Melbourne-based clubs such as St Kilda, Melbourne, or the Bulldogs.

Yet their tweet-per-day rate of 6.35 was the second-worst in the league. Only the Swans had a lower average - and at least they had 55,000 followers to back it up.

15. @westernbulldogs

At the start of 2015, only four clubs had fewer than 30,000 followers.

The Bulldogs had fewer followers than any other club, with 26,000. Yet they only trailed by a few thousand, and at least ranked seventh for tweets per day - with 11.15.

The Dogs also posted 2900 tweets in the off-season. Only the tweet kings at Adelaide posted more.


The league's newest club had 27,000 followers at round one, ahead of more established clubs such as Brisbane and the Bulldogs.

The Giants averaged a solid 9.73 tweets per day and posted 2200 tweets in the off-season.

They also began a Twitter war with the Dogs, posting a photograph of Leon Cameron, Callan Ward, Ryan Griffen in GWS colours. The caption? 'Lost Dogs Home'.

17. @brisbanelions

The Lions were the last club to join Twitter, on February 3, 2011. They only had 26,500 followers at round one - the second-worst in the league.

Furthermore, they only posted 1600 tweets in the off-season - about 20 per cent below the AFL average.

In general, however, the Lions averaged a decent rate of 10.20 tweets per day.

18. @GoldCoastSUNS

The Suns, who entered the league in 2011, should've been a beacon of modern marketing and glitzy gimmicks. Yet they sat among the cellar-dweller of social media, with fewer than 30,000 followers at round one.

And compared to the Bulldogs, Giants, and Lions, the Suns were in no hurry to attract more followers. They ran the third-laziest Twitter account, averaging only 7.66 tweets per day. Only the Swans and Dockers had a worse average.

In the most recent off-season the Suns only posted 900 tweets. (No other club posted fewer than 1000.) Their on-Twitter performance has been even worse than their on-field performance in 2015. And that's saying something.

*Unless otherwise indicated, statistics are correct to the start of round one, April 2, 2015.

**These rankings are arbitrarily based on various factors and have no scientific basis whatsoever, really.

0 0
please wait...