Most disappointing, underachieving lists ever?

[Piggy Smalls]

Geelong have made finals and looked a million bucks at times every year since I can remember and last won a flag in 2011. Surely they should have achieved more considering the players that have been on the list for that entire time.

 

[00Stinger]

The team that couldn’t win one flag would’ve beaten one of the greatest teams in the modern era who won three? lol sure thing

Yep

The quality of opposition from about 08-12 was so much better than 17-20

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

 

[Soggy2112]

Geelong have made finals and looked a million bucks at times every year since I can remember and last won a flag in 2011. Surely they should have achieved more considering the players that have been on the list for that entire time.

I don’t reckon Geelong have ever been the favourites heading into finals though, seems like there’s always been one or two teams that are a bit better. This year might be the year though.

 

[Crust]

Geelong have made finals and looked a million bucks at times every year since I can remember and last won a flag in 2011. Surely they should have achieved more considering the players that have been on the list for that entire time.

Or it could be said that Geelong has done extraordinarily well to stay up over such a long period.

 

[GastevsBeard]

Yep

The quality of opposition from about 08-12 was so much better than 17-20

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

I see this argument all the time - & it is always used as back-handed compliment for more recent flag winning teams

A team is a product of the rules & mores of the competition at any given time. In the decade that has passed, the competition is more even, has two extra teams, has largely eliminated tanking & is clearly more tactically mature

If St Kilda 08-12 is hypothetically "more talented" than Richmond 17-20 it is an irrelevant point, & if anything, only stands to make teams flags from the current era even more meritorious

 

[00Stinger]

I see this argument all the time - & it is always used as back-handed compliment for more recent flag winning teams

A team is a product of the rules & mores of the competition at any given time. In the decade that has passed, the competition is more even, has two extra teams, has largely eliminated tanking & is clearly more tactically mature

If St Kilda 08-12 is hypothetically "more talented" than Richmond 17-20 it is an irrelevant point, & if anything, only stands to make teams flags from the current era even more meritorious

It's neither a compliment or criticism tbh

The 08-12 period had four unbelievable teams with Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood & Hawthorn. You could almost throw the Doggies in there too

That period had the greatest depth of absolute top end teams over the last 20 years. That St Kilda team would have won a flag in any other part of the 2000's, they just happened to be around when Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn to an extent were at their peaks.

The Richmond team of 17-20 was a great side, you don't win three premierships at any stage without being an absolutely great team but that doesn't mean that non premiership winning teams in different era can't be better than them.

 

[GastevsBeard]

That period had the greatest depth of absolute top end teams over the last 20 years. That St Kilda team would have won a flag in any other part of the 2000's, they just happened to be around when Geelong, Collingwood and Hawthorn to an extent were at their peaks.

This is the part I am questioning - because that specific St Kilda list was a product of its time. I don't think it would be possible to get a list as stacked with top-end talent in the current AFL environment, & as such, it is irrelevant to compare St Kilda's list with any modern side

Had that St Kilda list been built in the modern era, it wouldn't have been quite as replete with the same top-end talent. So yes, maybe on paper they beat Richmond (debatable), but it is nothing more than an academic footnote that does not mean anything

 

[jwint43]

You can't really say that Saints side underachieved, they went as close as you can to winning a flag. The 08-11 period is probably the highest level of footy ever played and won't be repeated due to expansion, as the top teams were super stacked.

This current Melb group springs to mind, this year is their chance to prove themselves, should be interesting.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

Port Adelaide 2001-2003 always stand out for us.

2001 finish third
2002 minor premiers
2003 minor premiers

No Gfs or flags won when we probably should have been to ones to win multiple instead of the lions.

Obviously broke through in 04 but we should have had 1 or 2 before that. Missed opportunity for a dynasty which doesn’t come around often.

Some of those guys were probably at least equal if not better than their Brisbane counterparts. The team award of premiership elevates guys well above their non- or singular- premiership contemporaries. The Brown/Tredrea is easily the most obvious.

Chris Grant from the doggies suffers a similar fate.

 

[Hens Hall]

Going to be controversial but I don't agree that Essendon at the turn of the century under achieved.

One flag is a good result given how hard they can be to win.

The team is a little over rated due to their great season in 2000.

They had some good book ends in attack and defence but their midfield was somewhat lacking. Hird was probably their best midfielder but he was more of a swingman and needed in attack at times. The others would certainly not be talked about as elite or generational midfielders.

You compare them to the quality of the Brisbane midfield and it highlights the difference.

Essendon also tended to bully other sides into submission and if you could match them on in the physicality stakes (which Carlton did in 99 and Brisbane certainly did) then you were always a chance.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Going to be controversial but I don't agree that Essendon at the turn of the century under achieved.

One flag is a good result given how hard they can be to win.

The team is a little over rated due to their great season in 2000.

They had some good book ends in attack and defence but their midfield was somewhat lacking. Hird was probably their best midfielder but he was more of a swingman and needed in attack at times. The others would certainly not be talked about as elite or generational midfielders.

You compare them to the quality of the Brisbane midfield and it highlights the difference.

Essendon also tended to bully other sides into submission and if you could match them on in the physicality stakes (which Carlton did in 99 and Brisbane certainly did) then you were always a chance.

I feel people think they underacheved because of the loss to Carlton in 1999.

 

[Hens Hall]

I feel people think they underacheved because of the loss to Carlton in 1999.

oh for sure that was an upset but it was a pre-lim and that happens in finals.

Hawks, cats etc lost final they could/should have won also but still went on to win multiple flags.

 

[Piggy2008]

Bulldogs straight after their flag in '16 til 2020 and at this rate with their fall down the ladder '21 as well

 

[Blackas87]

This is the part I am questioning - because that specific St Kilda list was a product of its time. I don't think it would be possible to get a list as stacked with top-end talent in the current AFL environment, & as such, it is irrelevant to compare St Kilda's list with any modern side

Had that St Kilda list been built in the modern era, it wouldn't have been quite as replete with the same top-end talent. So yes, maybe on paper they beat Richmond (debatable), but it is nothing more than an academic footnote that does not mean anything

Don’t think I agree with this product of the time that you can’t get a stacked list currently. The draft is still in use. Every club still gets a first round pick.

St Kilda nailed a lot of picks outside the top 10. Lenny Hayes pick 11, Nick Dal Santo pick 13, Montagna pick 37, Milne Rookie draft. Picking Xavier Clark as a 2nd top 5 pick in 2001 isn’t why they were stacked.

Richmond also had plenty of top picks, Cotchin, Martin. Delideo was still playing (traded that end up getting Balta), could of had Buddy Franklin while also could of selected one of Shaun Higgins, Nathan Jones, Shannon Hurn, Grant Birchall instead of Oakley-Nichols with a top 10 pick in 2005.

The opportunity for Richmond to draft a more stacked team was certainly there. While they also playing in the free agency era and can pick top talent like Tom Lynch without giving up any list assets.

If a team has a few years down the bottom and nails some later picks I don’t see why they can’t get a stacked team like St Kilda did.

 

[Swanks McSwankserton]

Don’t think I agree with this product of the time that you can’t get a stacked list currently. The draft is still in use. Every club still gets a first round pick.

St Kilda nailed a lot of picks outside the top 10. Lenny Hayes pick 11, Nick Dal Santo pick 13, Montagna pick 37, Milne Rookie draft. Picking Xavier Clark as a 2nd top 5 pick in 2001 isn’t why they were stacked.

Richmond also had plenty of top picks, Cotchin, Martin. Delideo was still playing (traded that end up getting Balta), could of had Buddy Franklin while also could of selected one of Shaun Higgins, Nathan Jones, Shannon Hurn, Grant Birchall instead of Oakley-Nichols with a top 10 pick in 2005.

The opportunity for Richmond to draft a more stacked team was certainly there. While they also playing in the free agency era and can pick top talent like Tom Lynch without giving up any list assets.

If a team has a few years down the bottom and nails some later picks I don’t see why they can’t get a stacked team like St Kilda did.

While as you say (like every club successful or otherwise) Richmond had the opportunity to draft better, they were unfairly given less opportunity than what the Saints got by the drafts being compromised when Richmond were right at the ladder's depths (Richmond being the worst club over 2010-11 behind Brisbane). It probably wouldn't have helped the Tiges be a more dominant club in their era (as everyone else would have received almost the same boost in talent, with that remaining 'almost' being offset by getting Lynch from FA) but would help in these comparison discussions about these sides from different times.

 

[Jmac2225]

Tiger fans should just be satisfied they had a dynasty but their team really doesn't stack up to Brisbane, Geelong or Hawks dynasties. Very well coached and had bloke who could turn the tide of a game on the biggest day like no other but other wise I agree with the comments from earlier in this thread. They would have been lucky to make top 4 in that 2008-2012 era. It was an era with exceptionally strong opposition.

I often think Geelong are doing a great job to consistently still be finishing top 4 and pushing for premiers given our current side has no where near the depth of talent that our premiership sides had through that era.

 

[PCORF]

Adelaide 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019.

Did not underachieve in 2017, Richmond were just a special side and I knew we needed to give our best to beat them. But 2018 was a disaster.

Geelong also underachieved a lot after their 2011 premiership but hopefully reward for years of effort is in their sights. We'll see. Danger's best chance at a premiership is this year I think.

 

[PCORF]

Yeah really good side that one. My memory is they struggled big time against West Coast of that period though.

Beat West Coast only once in six tries during that 2 year period.

 

[Broken]

Curious to see an overachieving thread.

 

[Ron The Bear]

They would have been lucky to make top 4 in that 2008-2012 era.

Pffft, Ross Lyon footy would've struggled to kick a goal against Richmond. But this thread's about disappointing teams...

 

[footyfan1978]

One club one year had multiple league best and fairest winners and did not even make the grand final.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Sydney 2012-2017.

3 GF's
1 flag
5 top 4 finishes
2 minor premierships

 

[Macca18]

The Adelaide Crowbots in 2005 and 2006 played some of the best football ever seen. An amazing brand that stood up against most teams at most venues (during the H&A) under Neil Craig. Clinical. Far better than their 2017 Grand Final season.

How they never won anything is still unbelievable. And a massive indictment on that club, at the time, how they fell in a heap come finals time. We don’t hear much about it but would be fascinating to have some insight into how it all went wrong at the time, both years.

 

[Soggy2112]

The Adelaide Crowbots in 2005 and 2006 played some of the best football ever seen. An amazing brand that stood up against most teams at most venues (during the H&A) under Neil Craig. Clinical. Far better than their 2017 Grand Final season.

How they never won anything is still unbelievable. And a massive indictment on that club, at the time, how they fell in a heap come finals time. We don’t hear much about it but would be fascinating to have some insight into how it all went wrong at the time, both years.

As has been mentioned, they ran into West Coast both years, over those two years they were 1 and 5 against them. For whatever reason they just couldn’t work out how to beat the Eagles and it cost them a flag, especially considering they were 3 and 0 against the Swans.

 

[ep2018]

I don't know if it is controversial, but I feel like the current Eagles side has almost underachieved. I know they won a flag so some might find it laughable, but I feel like with the team they had they should have won more. But with the exception of 2018 they have a history of bombing out in finals going all the way back to 2016.

I think we cocked up 2019 by falling out of the top 4 last minute, that's the real disappointing year of this period, we should have at least made the grand final. All in all with two grand finals and one flag with the current list and coach I'd call it par I suppose.