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

[Lethality]

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).

It's a more valid and sought-after achievement. Hawthorn made 8 Grand Finals in 9 years for 5 premierships without a win-loss rate of 158 out of 200 games so clearly it doesn't mean as much as you think it does. This record win rate over 200 games was promoted earlier in the year when Geelong had won just one of their past 5 finals, now 1 of 6, so it just highlights the importance of playing well in finals over home and away games.

 

[Topper Harley]

It's a more valid and sought-after achievement. Hawthorn made 8 Grand Finals in 9 years for 5 premierships without a win-loss rate of 158 out of 200 games so clearly it doesn't mean as much as you think it does. This record win rate over 200 games was promoted earlier in the year when Geelong had won just one of their past 5 finals, now 1 of 6, so it just highlights the importance of playing well in finals over home and away games.

Winning premierships is the most valid and sought after achievement. Hawthorn and Geelong are either equal in this millennium, (same numbers of flags) or Geelong are ahead due to the rarity of their achievements. Hawthorn aren't ahead, unless they win it all in 2015.

Everything in bold in entirely irrelevant to this topic, I'm not sure why you wrote it.

 

[Rioli magic]

Underachieving isn't a positive.

 

[Lethality]

Winning premierships is the most valid and sought after achievement. Hawthorn and Geelong are either equal in this millennium, (same numbers of flags) or Geelong are ahead due to the rarity of their achievements. Hawthorn aren't ahead, unless they win it all in 2015.

Hawthorn are ahead because they have defended their title, Geelong have not. Also they have knocked Geelong out of finals twice to win premierships. It would seem that they have the better dynasty there.

 

[Lethality]

Everything in bold in entirely irrelevant to this topic, I'm not sure why you wrote it.

You brought it up. Geelong got to their 158/200 games record while failing dismally in finals with a 20% winning record post 2011. It just illustrates how winning finals is important in this, and Geelong's 200 game record is not.

 

[Topper Harley]

Hawthorn are ahead because they have defended their title, Geelong have not. Also they have knocked Geelong out of finals twice to win premierships. It would seem that they have the better dynasty there.

It would "seem" that way to anybody who isn't capable of using logical thought.

Geelong and Hawthorn share the same number of premierships, in order to split them (if you choose to) you need look at their win/loss records, finals records, Grand Final appearances, finals appearances and accolades. Grand Final appearances are even, as are finals wins. Finals appearences, win/loss record and accolades (Brownlow medals, AA's, record setting win streaks etc.) all show Geelong to be ahead.

If you rate back to back as some form of high water mark for greatness, then you would rank Hawthorn ahead. However, if you rank Hawthorn achieving something that's been done many times before above Geelong doing things that have never been done, your bias is coming through just a bit too clearly.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

You brought it up. Geelong got to their 158/200 games record while failing dismally in finals with a 20% winning record post 2011. It just illustrates how winning finals is important in this, and Geelong's 200 game record is not.

What about our finals record between 07-11? All you're doing is being selective with certain stats in order to suit your own argument. The problem with this is anyone with even a mild level of intelligence can see through your argument and find the truth by looking at the stats in their entirety.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I think something that I take great pride in as a Geelong supporter is that in the mid 2000's the game was becoming quite mundane and boring with Paul Roos' defensive game style seeming to be in vogue. Then Geelong came along and played a style that even the biggest cynics must have loved to have watched. I think we made footy exciting again at a time when at least imo it was heading in a bad direction.

I'll forever be greatful that Geelong were able to be so successful by playing in a way that was also breath taking to watch, and forever thankful that it just happened to be the club that I barracked for.

 

[Lethality]

It would "seem" that way to anybody who isn't capable of using logical thought.

Geelong and Hawthorn share the same number of premierships, in order to split them (if you choose to) you need look at their win/loss records, finals records, Grand Final appearances, all show Geelong to be ahead.

Eh, no. Geelong have 4 Grand Final appearances in this era, Hawthorn also with 4. I just picked you up on that one error, i can't be bothered delving into the stats to see if your other stats are accurate or not.

If you rate back to back as some form of high water mark for greatness, then you would rank Hawthorn ahead. However, if you rank Hawthorn achieving something that's been done many times before above Geelong doing things that have never been done, your bias is coming through just a bit too clearly.

You're missing the point. I don't rank the back to back as a certain measure of greatness, it's just another extra achievement which Hawthorn have to go with their 3 flags and 4 grand final apperances in this era. They're both on 3 flags for four GFs, but Hawthorn have gone back to back, so I would have to rate them as better and i think history will do likewise.

 

[Lethality]

What about our finals record between 07-11? .

Already factored into the discussion with the talk of flags and whatnot. The stat about the 200 games came out in 2014, so it was achieved during a period of finals failure for the GFC. Had you won fewer home and away games but not lost all those finals you'd be rated higher than you currently are. Therefore the 200 game thing is just a meaningless record in this discussion.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

The thing that I love most about the Hawks vs Geelong debate is that it is not over yet and there are still many more chapters to be written.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Already factored into the discussion with the talk of flags and whatnot. The stat about the 200 games came out in 2014, so it was achieved during a period of finals failure for the GFC. Had you won fewer home and away games but not lost all those finals you'd be rated higher than you currently are. Therefore the 200 game thing is just a meaningless record in this discussion.

This post is the biggest load of crap that I have ever read mate.

The stat regarding our wins over 200 games was achieved over a larger period of time than just 2012-2014. Surely you can understand that can't you? Therefore, our finals record over the whole 200 game period would be relevant.

Anyway, if you're in any doubt just go and have a look at the poll above to see what the general concensus is.

Personally, I think it's spot on.

 

[Lethality]

This post is the biggest load of crap that I have ever read mate.

The stat regarding our wins over 200 games was achieved over a larger period of time than just 2012-2014. Surely you can understand that can't you?

Of course, but it was ultimately completed in an era of finals failure for Geelong. 1 finals win out of 6 is a bigger concern than getting the most wins over 200 games. 2014 is as good an example as any. Lots of home and away wins, but out in straight sets. That's why I don't put any stock in that record.

Conversely the Brisbane Lions won 3 in a row without finishing minor premiers and they're regarded as the best team of this century so far. It's clear that not much stock is put in wins over 200 games when gauging the comparative greatness of these teams.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Of course, but it was ultimately completed in an era of finals failure for Geelong. 1 finals win out of 6 is a bigger concern than getting the most wins over 200 games. 2014 is as good an example as any. Lots of home and away wins, but out in straight sets. That's why I don't put any stock in that record.

What happened to HodgePodge? I liked him better.

 

[Topper Harley]

It would "seem" that way to anybody who isn't capable of using logical thought.

Geelong and Hawthorn share the same number of premierships, in order to split them (if you choose to) you need look at their win/loss records, finals records, Grand Final appearances, finals appearances and accolades. Grand Final appearances are even, as are finals wins. Finals appearences, win/loss record and accolades (Brownlow medals, AA's, record setting win streaks etc.) all show Geelong to be ahead.

If you rate back to back as some form of high water mark for greatness, then you would rank Hawthorn ahead. However, if you rank Hawthorn achieving something that's been done many times before above Geelong doing things that have never been done, your bias is coming through just a bit too clearly.

Eh, no. Geelong have 4 Grand Final appearances in this era, Hawthorn also with 4. I just picked you up on that one error, i can't be bothered delving into the stats to see if your other stats are accurate or not.



You're missing the point. I don't rank the back to back as a certain measure of greatness, it's just another extra achievement which Hawthorn have to go with their 3 flags and 4 grand final apperances in this era. They're both on 3 flags for four GFs, but Hawthorn have gone back to back, so I would have to rate them as better and i think history will do likewise.

My original (unedited) post is above yours, can you please point out again the only "error" you could find? I took the step of bolding the part you had an issue with.

I don't think we'll ever end up on the same page, I rate accolades that are more difficult to achieve, you rate ones that are easier, but suit your argument.

If there are no more premierships between the 2 sides, history will rate Geelong higher, but there is no doubt if Geelong or Hawthorn win in 2015, (or 16 or 17 for that matter) this whole argument will be pointless.

 

[Lethality]

I don't think we'll ever end up on the same page, I rate accolades that are more difficult to achieve, you rate ones that are easier, but suit your argument.

Oh please, at least stop trying to talk obvious bullshit about my position just because you don't agree with it. Rating a back to back higher than a bunch of predominantly home and away wins is hardly a unique viewpoint.

If there are no more premierships between the 2 sides, history will rate Geelong higher

Even Tom Harley rates Hawthorn's dynasty higher now, so I don't hold up much hope for history favouring Geelong.

 

[Hawkas1988]

Who the **** cares who is slightly ahead in regards to this. If anything it is the smallest factor but honestly who cares!!

Both teams have been incredible and both have 3 premierships to their name. That's all that matters. No point arguing over small reasons as to why one team should be ahead of the other.

Brisbane is out in front, Hawks and Cats are extremely close together but who cares really.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Oh please, at least stop trying to talk obvious bullshit about my position just because you don't agree with it.

This is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it.

 

[Monkey King]

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.

By your criteria, one would judge Adelaide to have been a better team in the 90's than North. Of course, this would be rubbish. North were one of the premier teams of the 90's, if not the premier team. If you give the Crows the nod by virtue of your criteria, you would be mistaken. This is because your criteria is flawed. There is a lot more that goes into arriving at an accurate understanding of how good a team was.

Essentially, when it comes to GF's and Premierships, we have this ...

Brisbane - 4 seasons, 4 GF's, 3 Flags
Geelong - 5 seasons, 4 GF's, 3 flags
Hawthorn - 7 seasons, 4 GF's, 3 flags

Pretty clear why we have the poll result we have. And it only becomes clearer when you consider the trimmings of Geelong's performance over that five years. Easily the best since Brisbane at this point. Of course you rate your team higher, but people can be blind to their own biases.

 

[Rioli magic]

Brisbane first, Hawthorn second, Geelong third. Consecutive flags obviously rated higher, hence Brisbane first, Hawthorn going back-to-back and beating Geelong in their other premiership gives them the nod over Geelong who unfortunately for them probably underachieved when it mattered.

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Brisbane first, Hawthorn second, Geelong third. Consecutive flags obviously rated higher, hence Brisbane first, Hawthorn going back-to-back and beating Geelong in their other premiership gives them the nod over Geelong who unfortunately for them probably underachieved when it mattered.

The fact that it took the Hawks two extra years to achieve what Geelong did will ultimately mean that the Hawks will be viewed as the inferior team.

 

[Claude Balls]

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.

Oh really?! That's precisely the point. It is a factor that speaks of the success and quality of the club overall - that they can stay up for that long, or rebuild so quickly. It does not speak directly of the quality of the players involved, when compared to a group of players that won 3 flags in less time and with less turnover. Quite simply, Geelong had a better team.

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

Lol, what's arbitrary is your assertion that back-to-back is the 'countback', and the 'tie-breaker'. You're basically talking Dennis Denuto without any assessment of the quantitative evidence available. You claim that the number of premierships has Geelong and Hawthorn equal, and that the back-to-back then puts Hawthorn in front. But when I use the same logic with respect to Adelaide of the 90s - they have 2 flags just like North and West Coast so why aren't they the team of the 90s due to the 'countback' of going back to back - you thereupon revert to other factors to discredit Adelaide. In this case, there are countless other factors in favour of Geelong being the better team than Hawthorn,. The number of common players and the period of time within which they won those three premierships are just such factors. It is harder to win 3 flags within in 3 years than it is in 4, or 5, or 6. Simillary it is harder to win 3 flags in 5 years than it is in 7.

You claim that B2B separates the two, but what you are really trying to argue is that it moves Hawthorn from behind to in front. At least if you said as much, your argument wouldn't be inherently illogical.

 

[Rioli magic]

The fact that it took the Hawks two extra years to achieve what Geelong did will ultimately mean that the Hawks will be viewed as the inferior team.

Geelong never achieved back-to-back.

 

[Claude Balls]

By your criteria, one would judge Adelaide to have been a better team in the 90's than North. Of course, this would be rubbish. North were one of the premier teams of the 90's, if not the premier team. If you give the Crows the nod by virtue of your criteria, you would be mistaken. This is because your criteria is flawed. There is a lot more that goes into arriving at an accurate understanding of how good a team was.

Essentially, when it comes to GF's and Premierships, we have this ...

Brisbane - 4 seasons, 4 GF's, 3 Flags
Geelong - 5 seasons, 4 GF's, 3 flags
Hawthorn - 7 seasons, 4 GF's, 3 flags

Pretty clear why we have the poll result we have. And it only becomes clearer when you consider the trimmings of Geelong's performance over that five years. Easily the best since Brisbane at this point. Of course you rate your team higher, but people can be blind to their own biases.

I tried that one already MK but he just did a 180.

 

[Lethality]

By your criteria, one would judge Adelaide to have been a better team in the 90's than North. Of course, this would be rubbish.

I already addressed the fact that back to backs are not necessarily a measure of greatness, they're just the decider in this case when both sides have 4 Grand Final appearances for 3 premierships.