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

[HODGEYROAD]

I am not going to repeat myself. Perhaps read in what context my previous posts were posted? (Good advice in general when responding to old posts)

So your assuming Franklin wouldn't have left the Hawks with no FA. If your allowed to assume... then I will assume Sydney (and GWS) would still have offered a massive contract to Franklin FA or not and he would have asked to be traded up to Sydney.

In which Sydney would have had nothing to offer to entice Hawthorn through a trade and Hawthorn would have said PSD or re sign which in all likelihood would have led him to staying as he wouldn't want to play for cellar dwellers.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

I think people have to seriously take into consideration the quality and strength of the competition each team faced. The triple peat Brisbane had was luckily against pretty poor opposition in coolingwood and a decent port side which buckled in September badly, but was a good HA side. Geelong faced pretty weak opposition in 07, but faces two extremely strong sides in coolingwood in 11 who only lost to Geelong the entire year and won 20/2 for the season which is incredible, same with st kilda who won 20 games for the HA season including 15 straight. Geelong had to overcome two very very strong teams to win two of their premierships, who would have both in many other seasons been premiership sides. Hawthorn beat Geelong in 08 after Geelong kicked themselves out of it, but still beating a freakishly good side, but other than that hawthorn have faced some very ordinary competition.

Ordinary competition ? Sydney had won 18 of 20 leading into the GF but whatever makes you sleep at night...

 

[ryan_seb]

Brisbane>Hawthorn>Geelong.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Ordinary competition? Don't confuse a poor effort by the swans on the day and an amazing performance by the hawks with Sydney being ordinary competition.

Sydney are a very good side and showed that by winning practically every game in the 2nd half of the season besides hawks in round 18 and the last round of the season.

Just because we absolutely smashed them doesn't mean they're ordinary. Where's the credit to Hawthorn in that

If I was to put it in context since say 2009-11 which I believe was the strongest up the top the competition has been in a long time, I would place that Sydney side from last year behind several of the sides from 09-11 which I believe was the strongest the competition has been in a long time, I would put them behind easily the st kilda and coolingwood sides, even behind the hawthorn side of 10-11, as well just behind the bulldogs side.

Ordinary competition ? Sydney had won 18 of 20 leading into the GF but whatever makes you sleep at night...

Selective with numbers a little there, they won 17/5 for the season, you can fudge it all you want but that was the big picture, they had a good year, but they weren't world beaters, a lot of sides of recent years both grand finalists and runners up would have beaten them. The fact is the competition up the top went backwards a little last season. Hopefully it picks up this year with some teams emerging more

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Also, can someone please explain to me why a premiership hawthorn won six years ago with hardly a similar name is being put in the equation?

It's obviously not close at all to being the same team.

It should be hawthorn 12-14 and TBA as they are still contending. I don't see how 08 has any relevance

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Also, can someone please explain to me why a premiership hawthorn won six years ago with hardly a similar name is being put in the equation?

It's obviously not close at all to being the same team.

It should be hawthorn 12-14 and TBA as they are still contending. I don't see how 08 has any relevance

Yeah I can see the logic behind this.

 

[WWSD]

Also, can someone please explain to me why a premiership hawthorn won six years ago with hardly a similar name is being put in the equation?

It's obviously not close at all to being the same team.

It should be hawthorn 12-14 and TBA as they are still contending. I don't see how 08 has any relevance

2008 is relevant because Clarkson coached us to that flag and last time I checked he's still our coach. Another thing that many people seem to be overlooking is our 'leaders' back in 2008 your Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead and Birchall, those players who kick started our run, are all still playing today and are a big reason as to why we've won three flags under Clarskon.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

2008 is relevant because Clarkson coached us to that flag and last time I checked he's still our coach. Another thing that many people seem to be overlooking is our 'leaders' back in 2008 your Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead and Birchall, those players who kick started our run, are all still playing today and are a big reason as to why we've won three flags under Clarskon.

There are only six players from the 08 premiership that played in 14,very very different team, not even close

 

[drummond2fevola]

2008 is relevant because Clarkson coached us to that flag and last time I checked he's still our coach. Another thing that many people seem to be overlooking is our 'leaders' back in 2008 your Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead and Birchall, those players who kick started our run, are all still playing today and are a big reason as to why we've won three flags under Clarskon.

Thats a horrible argument.

 

[Monkey King]

Thats a horrible argument.

Yep. Let's just throw Essendon 84-85-93-2000 into the equation while we're at it

Or Carlton 81-82 & 95 perhaps?

 

[Claude Balls]

2008 is relevant because Clarkson coached us to that flag and last time I checked he's still our coach. Another thing that many people seem to be overlooking is our 'leaders' back in 2008 your Hodge, Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead and Birchall, those players who kick started our run, are all still playing today and are a big reason as to why we've won three flags under Clarskon.

Lol. I was going to point out the bleeding obvious but see others have already done so.

2008 is not where near as relevant as Hawks fans want it to be. 6 common players. Missed the finals afterwards, and 7 years between it and 2014.

Why don't we talk about the Essendon era between 1993 and 2000? They had 6 common players too.

 

[WWSD]

Lol. I was going to point out the bleeding obvious but see others have already done so.

2008 is not where near as relevant as Hawks fans want it to be. 6 common players. Missed the finals afterwards, and 7 years between it and 2014.

Why don't we talk about the Essendon era between 1993 and 2000? They had 6 common players too.

IF we were to win this years Premiership, would we have then surpassed Brisbane in you're opinion? What more do Hawthorn have to do in order to surpass Brisbane? It would read Hawthorn 4 Premierships to Brisbane 3. I don't rate us above Brisbane at the moment, let alone Geelong, but in my opinion if we were to win the 2015 Premiership then surely we are ahead of the Lions? From 2011-2014 we've won more games then what Brisbane did during their era of 2001-2004.

From Round 1 2011-2014 Hawthorn have won more games then any other side during that period, biggest average wining margin in the league, produced two Coleman medalists, won 9/12 finals matches since the start of 2011 and have been the highest scoring side in the league for four years straight.

 

[Hawkas1988]

IMO it's Brissy clear number 1.

Arguments made for either Geelong or Hawthorn 2nd but I would go Geelong, then Hawthorn.

If Hawthorn wins it this year, they go straight to the top.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Yep. Let's just throw Essendon 84-85-93-2000 into the equation while we're at it

Or Carlton 81-82 & 95 perhaps?

From the Geelong 07 premiership side, 14 of them played in the 2011 premiership team, with also milburn contributing constantly during the season, if was a very similar side with the same core group sticking together all those years. You definitely can't say that about the hawthorn side which only had six the same, In fact I doubt even 13 can be called the same team as 08. Brisbanr and Geelong three premierships were the same core group. 08 really needs to be taken off this

 

[Monkey King]

From the Geelong 07 premiership side, 14 of them played in the 2011 premiership team, with also milburn contributing constantly during the season, if was a very similar side with the same core group sticking together all those years. You definitely can't say that about the hawthorn side which only had six the same, In fact I doubt even 13 can be called the same team as 08. Brisbanr and Geelong three premierships were the same core group. 08 really needs to be taken off this

I think about 'sides' more in terms of who was on the list, as opposed to who was simply in the team on the day.

From Hawthorn's perspective only 6 of the 2014 premiership team were even on the Hawks list back in 2008, let alone in the team. That's 16 players from the 2014 flag who were playing elsewhere back in 2008 - certainly this can not be regarded as the same Hawthorn 'side'.

For Geelong however, 18 players from the 2011 premiership team were on the list back 07' - that is the bulk of the team right there. Same side in my books.

It's simply an unreasonable, when comparing 'sides', to lump the 2008 group's achievements in the 2012-14 group's IMO.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

IF we were to win this years Premiership, would we have then surpassed Brisbane in you're opinion? What more do Hawthorn have to do in order to surpass Brisbane? It would read Hawthorn 4 Premierships to Brisbane 3. I don't rate us above Brisbane at the moment, let alone Geelong, but in my opinion if we were to win the 2015 Premiership then surely we are ahead of the Lions? From 2011-2014 we've won more games then what Brisbane did during their era of 2001-2004.

From Round 1 2011-2014 Hawthorn have won more games then any other side during that period, biggest average wining margin in the league, produced two Coleman medalists, won 9/12 finals matches since the start of 2011 and have been the highest scoring side in the league for four years straight.

if they can win it this year, then this poll can be relevant and have hawthorn 3 premierships on par with geelong and Brisbane, and the floor can be opened for discussion as to which of the 3 is the greatest side. but at the present, hawthorn have only won 2 premierships with this current side and do not belong in discussions with two sides that won 3 premierships with the same core team.

winning it this year will only put them into discussions, not put them no1.

 

[WWSD]

if they can win it this year, then this poll can be relevant and have hawthorn 3 premierships on par with geelong and Brisbane, and the floor can be opened for discussion as to which of the 3 is the greatest side. but at the present, hawthorn have only won 2 premierships with this current side and do not belong in discussions with two sides that won 3 premierships with the same core team.

winning it this year will only put them into discussions, not put them no1.

IF we were to win it this year I would then rate us above Brisbane (not Geelong). We currently have 19 dual premiership players who played in the 13-14 Grand Final. I've never rated Hawthorn above Geelong as I'll stand by what I said about the Cats being the greatest team of the modern era, however if Hawthorn were to win three in a row then we would surpass Brisbane as a better team in my opinion. From 2011-2014 the Hawks have a greater win-loss record then what Brisbane did from 2001-04.

 

[detox]

I think about 'sides' more in terms of who was on the list, as opposed to who was simply in the team on the day.

From Hawthorn's perspective only 6 of the 2014 premiership team were even on the Hawks list back in 2008, let alone in the team. That's 16 players from the 2014 flag who were playing elsewhere back in 2008 - certainly this can not be regarded as the same Hawthorn 'side'.

For Geelong however, 18 players from the 2011 premiership team were on the list back 07' - that is the bulk of the team right there. Same side in my books.

It's simply an unreasonable, when comparing 'sides', to lump the 2008 group's achievements in the 2012-14 group's IMO.

So what are you saying, if we win this year 08 can't be counted?

Make no mistake, If we win this year, 08 will be the cherry on top that will unmistakably put us above Brisbane.

Any attempts to downplay it are irrelevant.

 

[Rioli magic]

Apparently "Hawthorn of the 80's" was in fact completely different eras, despite playing in every grand final from 83-89. Only 6 players played in both the 83' and 89' premierships - in summary Hawthorn of the 80's weren't very good.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Apparently "Hawthorn of the 80's" was in fact completely different eras, despite playing in every grand final from 83-89. Only 6 players played in both the 83' and 89' premierships - in summary Hawthorn of the 80's weren't very good.

It isn't very hard to understand, if the players in the teams are very different then it's not the same team. The 08 side and the 14 team had 16 different players on their respective grand final appearances, very very different team, not considered the same side at all. Sustained club success and succession planning has no relevance to whether or not it was the same side which won the premierships, two seperate topics

 

[SouthSwans]

Geelong & Hawthorn didn't have this bloke:

 

[Monkey King]

So what are you saying, if we win this year 08 can't be counted?

Doesn't matter what you do this year, the 2008 side and the 2014 side are simply not the same football side, for reasons of which I've already provided. Thus, IMO it is folly to ascribe the achievements of these two playing groups to being the achievements of one playing group. If you have an issue with the reasoning, then take it to task and point out its flaws.

 

[Rioli magic]

It isn't very hard to understand, if the players in the teams are very different then it's not the same team. The 08 side and the 14 team had 16 different players on their respective grand final appearances, very very different team, not considered the same side at all. Sustained club success and succession planning has no relevance to whether or not it was the same side which won the premierships, two seperate topics

I understand - hence pointing out that Hawthorn only produced moderately successful teams in the 80's.

One thing I'm not sure about is where the cut-off is in terms of same team/different team?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I understand - hence pointing out that Hawthorn only produced moderately successful teams in the 80's.

One thing I'm not sure about is where the cut-off is in terms of same team/different team?

don't think anyone could put a quantitative figure upon it, I think common sense just needs to be exercised when making the call.

in my opinion I would say at least 14 minimum still need to be out there from the last premiership, and then it also depends on how much is relied upon by the extra names brought in during that time. if you went out and brought 2-3 superstar gun players that weren't around your last premiership, then its a completely different thing to having the new players in your team young players or top up players, with the same players doing all the work from previously

 

[Rioli magic]

don't think anyone could put a quantitative figure upon it, I think common sense just needs to be exercised when making the call.

....

in my opinion I would say at least 14 minimum still need to be out there from the last premiership, and then it also depends on how much is relied upon by the extra names brought in during that time. if you went out and brought 2-3 superstar gun players that weren't around your last premiership, then its a completely different thing to having the new players in your team young players or top up players, with the same players doing all the work from previously

Not good for those Hawthorn teams of the 80's/90's - 5 separate era's in that incorrectly termed "golden era" for the club. Should probably be referred to as the bronze period of little significance - at best one of those 5 teams was the 3rd best team of the decade.