Last Saturday, a familiar scenario played out. Geelong were in serious trouble of suffering an upset loss before the dynamic duo of Patrick Dangerfield and Joel Selwood stepped up in scintillating fashion to drag the Cats over the line, this time against Melbourne. Their game-winning heroics are fast becoming the stuff of legend. But such has been their dominance since Dangerfield partnered up with Selwood last season it begged the question - is it better to have a champion team or a team of champions? Of course, every club in the land would love a one-two punch of 'Dangerwood' quality, but the evidence suggests having a more equal team - one with multiple paths to goal and several ball-magnets - is a more reliable way to win than relying on one or two superstars.

Inequality has been falling in the AFL for years, at least on the field. Teams are sharing the ball around - and sharing the shots at goal - much more than their predecessors did in the 1990s. To measure this inequality in disposals and scoring shots, we can use the Gini coefficient -- a common measure that is equal to 100 if a single player had all the disposals or scoring shots, or equal to 0 if the ball was shared completely equally among a team's players. A higher value means more inequality.

Disposals and scoring shots are shared more equally within teams than in the past:

The trend has clearly been towards more equal use of the ball within teams - both disposals and scoring shots are less concentrated than they were in the past. This trend has developed for seemingly good reasons: sides that share the ball around more tend to win games more often. On average, the more an outfit shares the ball around in a given game, the better the margin is likely to be for them.