Brisbane 01-03 v Geelong 07-11 v Hawthorn 08-14.

[Stratton_Gun]

Coming from a club that benefited from priority picks, Victorian go home factor and free agency... I guess you guys would get docked points for those factors as well considering Brisbane didn't get those concessions? Also Considering Brisbane's concessions were available to every club in the comp, I think talking about docking points for an unfair advantage goes both ways...

Extra money in the salary cap was available to all clubs?

 

[Hawkas1988]

Who cares. 3 flags is 3 flags. But if we are talking achievement then Brisbane get points docked because they were pretty much handed 3 flags on a platter with their concessions

No team is handed 3 flags. Whatever you may think they were amazing in finals and worked hard for it. If they were so gifted by everything they would have dominated every home and away season which they didn't.

I find it really weak when supporters try and denounce another teams achievements just to make theirs look a little better.

 

[Mitchell54]

Coming from a club that benefited from priority picks, Victorian go home factor and free agency.

How Did we benefit from Free agency between 08 and 14 + Free Agency is available to the whole comp.

 

[Mitchell54]

I chose Geelong because Didn't watch much footy early 21st century so I can't really pick Brisbane.

 

[Lethality]

Geelong take their place behind Hawthorn now that Hawthorn have gone back to back and eliminated Geelong from finals twice in the same period.

Brisbane first.

After all the talk about Geelong's amazing dynasty and whether they could keep it going, they're only the third best team in 14 years? Seems unfair, but that's football.

 

[Dom PC]

Extra money in the salary cap was available to all clubs?

Yes! Read the rules next time you post.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Yes! Read the rules next time you post.

Explain how?

 

[Dom PC]

How Did we benefit from Free agency between 08 and 14 + Free Agency is available to the whole comp.

I really like your team, I think they have a great chance to do 3 in a row. But they aren't there yet and if they do, then no doubt Frawley (FA), Gunston/O'Rourke (home sick) and Roughead (priority pick) will have a big contribution to that happening. So when comparing a Hawks three-peat to Brisbane three-peat who didn't have FA as an option, I think it's a valid point to bring up.

 

[Dom PC]

Explain how?

If your squad had over a % of players from interstate you would receive a salary cap allowance which is what we received. So back then if Collingwood or Hawthorn etc. wanted it all they had to do is have that percentage of interstate players in their squad... funny how no Vic club ever took advantage of that huh... I wonder why lol

 

[Stratton_Gun]

If your squad had over a % of players from interstate you would receive a salary cap allowance which is what we received. So back then if Collingwood or Hawthorn etc. wanted it all they had to do is have that percentage of interstate players in their squad... funny how no Vic club ever took advantage of that huh... I wonder why lol

Would be hard considering most players are Victorian.

 

[drummond2fevola]

Who cares. 3 flags is 3 flags. But if we are talking achievement then Brisbane get points docked because they were pretty much handed 3 flags on a platter with their concessions

Hawthorn have benefited indirectly from concessions. Almost every club around them plateaued as the Hawks reaped the rewards of priority picks before the AFL expansion.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Hawthorn have benefited indirectly from concessions. Almost every club around them plateaued as the Hawks reaped the rewards of priority picks before the AFL expansion.

Those were available for all poorly performing clubs back then. In 2003 Brisbane spent more than 8mil on its players despite the normal salary cap being less than 6mil. It's not surprising that Brisbane only became irrelevant once the concessions were taken away. Something I hope happens to the Swans in the near future

 

[Mitchell54]

Those were available for all poorly performing clubs back then. In 2003 Brisbane spent more than 8mil on its players despite the normal salary cap being less than 6mil. It's not surprising that Brisbane only became irrelevant once the concessions were taken away. Something I hope happens to the Swans in the near future

I am definitely on the same page as you there. Bloody Swans get whatever they want!!

 

[Monkey King]

After all the talk about Geelong's amazing dynasty and whether they could keep it going, they're only the third best team in 14 years? Seems unfair, but that's football.

Nothing unfair about that because it isn't really true. The Cats have put up some serious H&A domination and walked away with three flags over something like 5 years as a top 2 team over the H&A. Clearly vie with the Lions for being the best (who also vie with the best of all-time btw), but fall short in the eyes of most because they lost that one match at the end of the year in 2008, but yeah, that's just one match. If you're in any doubt, just check the poll for where Geelong rank among teams of the last 14 years. That's just football

 

[PACatter]

Comparing 3 years of 1, 5 years of another and 7 years of another doesn't seem quite fair.

I think it's a good way to go, though.

If it takes you seven years to get the same achievements in the same era as it takes another team only 5 years to achieve, you clearly aren't the superior dynasty. It's also hard to call 3 years of dominance a "dynasty", but for the sake of this argument, I think you have to go Brissy>Geelong>Hawthorne.

In terms of entertainment, I'd go Geelong>Brissy>Hawthorne

 

[Crock]

I really like your team, I think they have a great chance to do 3 in a row. But they aren't there yet and if they do, then no doubt Frawley (FA), Gunston/O'Rourke (home sick) and Roughead (priority pick) will have a big contribution to that happening. So when comparing a Hawks three-peat to Brisbane three-peat who didn't have FA as an option, I think it's a valid point to bring up.

Fair point however I would suggest that the advantages you got out the collapse of Fitzroy is greater than what you are suggesting we have got!

 

[spinynorman]

Agreed with what a few people are saying here - Brisbane were great for a period of three (or four) years. Geelong have been right up there in the top six for eight years in a row, and top three in the H&A for seven of those eight years. Hawthorn's 2008 I don't really see as being the same era - as said it was a largely different team from the one who won five years later. In the same way I don't see the Hawthorn that won in 1978 as being the same as the one that won five from 1983-1991. It's a little bit arbitrary and a little bit commonsense.

 

[Lethality]

Nothing unfair about that because it isn't really true. The Cats have put up some serious H&A domination and walked away with three flags over something like 5 years as a top 2 team over the H&A. Clearly vie with the Lions for being the best (who also vie with the best of all-time btw), but fall short in the eyes of most because they lost that one match at the end of the year in 2008, but yeah, that's just one match. If you're in any doubt, just check the poll for where Geelong rank among teams of the last 14 years. That's just football

In terms of historically great teams, home and away wins are barely discussed. Not many can cite off-hand Hawthorn's home and away record in the 80s or Melbourne's during their run in the 50s. The scoreline in judging those teams seems to be based on Grand Finals and premierships, including consecutive flags in the case of Hawthorn and Brisbane. Geelong have fallen short in that regard so they will probably be judged the third best team of this 14 year era in years to come.

but fall short in the eyes of most because they lost that one match at the end of the year in 2008, but yeah, that's just one match.

So what, they did lose it after all, and that's what they're judged on. They also lost their other knockout final against hawthorn in the same era. So poor head to head record in finals and lack of consecutive flags are the reasons why I don't think they can be considered to be level with Hawthorn at this time.

 

[Claude Balls]

Geelong take their place behind Hawthorn now that Hawthorn have gone back to back and eliminated Geelong from finals twice in the same period.

Brisbane first.

After all the talk about Geelong's amazing dynasty and whether they could keep it going, they're only the third best team in 14 years? Seems unfair, but that's football.

Yeah it's kind of unfair that Adelaide is regarded as the best team of the 90s too. Oh wait, they're not!

Back to back is overrated. It's nice, but not the magic trump card Hawthorn supporters want it to be in this instance. If the other flag in your run wasn't a 5 year outlier (with only 6 common players), you would have claims to being 2nd after Brisbane, but as it stands, what you've achieved is still not as impressive as Geelong.

 

[Lethality]

Yeah it's kind of unfair that Adelaide is regarded as the best team of the 90s too. Oh wait, they're not!

Adelaide won a premiership under the old finals system, from finishing 7th or 8th one year, which is why they're not as highly rated, and they also didn't have a sustained period of success over a long period of time. I mentioned that in my post. Grand Finals/premierships and so on.

Back to back is overrated. It's nice, but not the magic trump card Hawthorn supporters want it to be in this instance. If the other flag in your run wasn't a 5 year outlier (with only 6 common players), you would have claims to being 2nd after Brisbane, but as it stands, what you've achieved is still not as impressive as Geelong.

The 6 common players only relates to the list turnover that happened during that time and if anything just makes Hawthorn's run even more impressive. No use in discounting that third flag as an outlier either, it exists in the same era, and the back to back being the only difference between Hawthorn and Geelong puts the Hawks ahead. It's like a countback system, when there's an equal number of premierships, preference the team that has gone back 2 back. In that case it's Brisbane first, then Hawthorn, Geelong.

 

[Claude Balls]

Adelaide won a premiership under the old finals system, from finishing 7th or 8th one year, which is why they're not as highly rated, and they also didn't have a sustained period of success over a long period of time. I mentioned that in my post. Grand Finals/premierships and so on.



The 6 common players only relates to the list turnover that happened during that time and if anything just makes Hawthorn's run even more impressive. No use in discounting that third flag as an outlier either, it exists in the same era, and the back to back being the only difference between Hawthorn and Geelong puts the Hawks ahead. It's like a countback system, when there's an equal number of premierships, preference the team that has gone back 2 back. In that case it's Brisbane first, then Hawthorn, Geelong.

List turnover makes it more impressive?! List turnover makes it a different team, which instantly devalue's Hawthorn's claim to being regarded as having the best team during their era because it's effectively saying the same number of flags were achieved with a greater number of players coming through the clubs doors. They required more time and more players to stock pile those three flags. 3 flags over 7 years including 5 years between flags 1 and 2 and bombing out of the finals is simply not the same as what Geelong and Brisbane achieved.

What you are obviously confusing is the difference between a great team as defined by onfield dominance over a period of time, and the success of a club off the field in terms of sustained performance as defined by list management, player turnover, recruitment etc. That is the argument in which you cite 5 years between flags and 6 common players as being positive things. Hawthorn has a legitimate claim to being the best 'club' of the past 14 years due to their overall success. They don't have a claim to having the best team.

BTW, Adelaide finished 5th, not 7th or 8th. They were not the best team in 1998, arguably not the best team in 1997, yet they won both flags with a bit of good fortune. Both North and West Coast of the 90s were more dominant, and despite only winning one flag, Carlton of 1995 had a better team. Back-to-back is not the instantaneous count-back winner you want it to be. It is actually without any numerical or quantitative basis as far as measuring it's worth goes. Unlike, for example, a team's overall winning percentage during their era.

 

[Lethality]

List turnover makes it more impressive?! List turnover makes it a different team, which instantly devalue's Hawthorn's claim to being regarded as having the best team during their era because it's effectively saying the same number of flags were achieved with a greater number of players coming through the clubs doors. They required more time and more players to stock pile those three flags.

They didn't require them for premiership success, they managed it despite the list turnover. This just pays testament to Hawthorn's adaptability rather than anything else.

What you are obviously confusing is the difference between a great team as defined by onfield dominance over a period of time, and the success of a club off the field in terms of sustained performance as defined by list management, player turnover, recruitment etc. That is the argument in which you cite 5 years between flags and 6 common players as being positive things.

Sustained performance on the field isn't an off the field achievement. Yes there is work done behind the scenes to ensure on-field success, but that doesn't discount the on-field success, it's just part of the reason behind it.

BTW, Adelaide finished 5th, not 7th or 8th. .

Whatever it was, they were a flash in the pan that got lucky due to what was effectively a wildcard system. Hawthorn's run now spans 7 years, just as West Coast and North Melbourne ran a similar length in the 90s. Back to back is always used as a measure to split great teams, and it puts Hawthorn ahead of Geelong in this instance. You can quote anomalies like Adelaide all you want, back to backs will remain the tie-breaker between these two teams when we look back on this era.

 

[Claude Balls]

They didn't require them for premiership success, they managed it despite the list turnover. This just pays testament to Hawthorn's adaptability rather than anything else.

Yes it does pay testament to their adaptability, but this is not an argument that speaks of a team's greatness. It is an argument that speaks of the club's greatness. I have no problem with someone claiming that Hawthorn is a better run club due to the fact that they have been up and about for longer - their run spanning 7 years - however the very same argument cannot be used to say that they had the best team. If two blokes stand next to a pile of rocks with a view to getting three in a distant bucket, the bloke who does it in less throws is the better thrower.

Sustained performance on the field isn't an off the field achievement. Yes there is work done behind the scenes to ensure on-field success, but that doesn't discount the on-field success, it's just part of the reason behind it.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here. The two are clearly linked. When a club like Hawthorn defies the system via canny recruiting and player development, it is clearly an off-field achievement as well as on-field.

Whatever it was, they were a flash in the pan that got lucky due to what was effectively a wildcard system. Hawthorn's run now spans 7 years, just as West Coast and North Melbourne ran a similar length in the 90s. Back to back is always used as a measure to split great teams, and it puts Hawthorn ahead of Geelong in this instance. You can quote anomalies like Adelaide all you want, back to backs will remain the tie-breaker between these two teams when we look back on this era.

You speak of this as though it's universally accepted wisdom. Back-to-back is the 'countback', the 'tie-breaker'. Your use of the word countback would only be accurate if Hawthorn had won their flags in 5 years and with a similar number of players. I.e. the next point of reference when all other things are equal. You are essentially using it to move Hawthorn from behind Geelong to in front, which is something you are refusing to do with Adelaide.

 

[Topper Harley]

You can quote anomalies like Adelaide all you want, back to backs will remain the tie-breaker between these two teams when we look back on this era.

So in your mind, back to back is a more impressive achievement than winning 158 of 200 games? (which include finals)

The reason I ask is because back to back premierships has been done roughly 20 times (maybe more, I won't look it up).
While Geelongs W/L record has been done once (by Geelong). If we need a tiebreaker (which we do as both teams are on 3 flags), Geelong rank above, because what they achieved has never been done before, while Hawthorn's achievement has been done numerous times.

 

[Lethality]

Yes it does pay testament to their adaptability, but this is not an argument that speaks of a team's greatness. It is an argument that speaks of the club's greatness.

It speaks of both. They're an adaptable side on and off the field, with a lot of utility players and depth which I see as the main reason for their ability to adapt and absorb difficult periods. This recruiting was done off-field, but it plays out on the field, which is why they're a great on-field side in terms of adaptibility.

You speak of this as though it's universally accepted wisdom. Back-to-back is the 'countback', the 'tie-breaker'. Your use of the word countback would only be accurate if Hawthorn had won their flags in 5 years and with a similar number of players.

No it wouldn't that's just your arbitrary criteria. Nobody cares about the player turnover during an era of success, that's just bizarre logic pulled straight from the Geelong Advertiser. Meanwhile it's pretty much universally accepted that Brisbane's threepeat is the team achievement of this century to date, and it's not because they didn't lose too many players during that period