Why isn't Hawthorn considered one of the 'big 4' despite it's recent success?

[PerthBoy86]

In terms of membership, average crowd figures, apparent casual fans etc, Hawthorn isn't usually grouped with Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond as one of the big 4 Melbourne clubs. Given it's by far the most successful club in the VFL/AFL since the 60s, why is this? I get they were cellar dwellers on the level of North, St Kilda, Footscray for a long time, but that's a long time ago. I understand they gained many fans in the 70s-80s and again in the 10s...yet they almost merged in 1996 with Melbourne, which had the opposite trajectory to Hawthorn: in 1964 Hawthorn had won 1 flag to Melbourne's 12. By 2020 they'd overtaken Melbourne 13 to 12 unbelievably, before Melbourne broke the drought. Kind of cool you have 3 clubs on 13 now.

But yeah, interested to hear some unbiased opinions/thoughts.

Sdit: realise title sounds a bit silly now, but the question is more why they dont have more supporters...or maybe they do but fewer 'serious' ones?

 

[spudmaster]

We're usually too busy hosting business events in our Toorak mansions to attend the games. Not to mention our TVs are bigger than the ones at the G. We do, however, charge visitors more for our champagne and caviar.

 

[NetworkNerd]

Hawthorn could win the next 20 flags and still not be part of the big 4. It's hard to put a finger on it.

The big 4 have a massive amount of casual supporters. Carlton have become good... Hundreds of thousands of people will start going to games, buying memberships etc. Hawthorn only became good since the 60s. Great but Melbourne was already carved up by that point. Parents would push their kids to support the same club as them in general. So who is your new supporter base? Kids switching to a more successful club or migrants to Victoria. Most Greek/Italian migrants I know all go for Carlton/Collingwood/Essendon/Richmond and their kids do the same. I think Hawthorn are doing ok with the Indian community but need to keep the success to get them on board.

That being said I don't think 1996 will happen again because kids that jumped on in the 1970s were still young in 1996, now they are mature adults with families of their own and disposable income. Hawthorn is a rich suburb so there should be plenty of money there to keep the club going.

 

[Irish BlueBagger]

I suppose unlike Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and i suppose Richmond (the Tigers were a slightly later entry to the VFL) as well, Hawthorn weren't a historical powerhouse of the competition.

The big four clubs were successful (Richmond not so much though) from the early days of the competition, and built up huge fanbases as a result of that.

Hawthorn were a late entry into the competition. They were bit of a joke club for many years, it wasn't until 1961 when they won their first flag.

The Hawks then won three flags in the 70's, but it was that run of success from that period from 1983-1991, that saw Hawthorn really announce their arrival as a big club and a major player on the footy scene.

So the Hawks kind of underwent a rags to riches transformation, and those are my reasons for why they don't seem to have the profile of the so called big four clubs.

Considering that Hawthorn have won more flags than anyone else since 1961, i doubt that it's something that bothers their supporters all that much though!

 

[Ricmel]

I always think of the AFL "Big 4" as a product of the 70s and 80s. Back then you could clearly say that Pies, Blues, Bombers and Tigers were the most followed teams in the comp. So different now with Eagles and Crows right up there, Hawks too. I expect in 10 - 15 years time when sustained failure and various scandals at Blues and Bombers their numbers will fall further as the current group of 10 - 25 year olds start to come through.

Right now I think Pies and Tigers and to a lesser extent Cats are the power clubs of Victoria. Hawks should be there to but personally I always feel like they lack a bit of identity - that may be more so when the whole Dingley thing happens.

 

[WilloTree]

Do people still use the term 'big 4'? It's been obsolete since 87

 

[Engimal v3]

I've always thought Big 4 referred to off-field strength rather than on-field success. Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond have been the financial backbone of the comp historically, where Hawthorn hasn't ever been as big. Not sure why their success in the 80s didn't garner them more supporters, but you could probably ask the same of North in the 90s.

 

[boncer34]

Big clubs don't sell home games. It's why Richmond are no longer in the big 4.

 

[Breretonisahood]

I suppose unlike Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and i suppose Richmond (the Tigers were a slightly later entry to the VFL) as well, Hawthorn weren't a historical powerhouse of the competition.

The big four clubs were successful (Richmond not so much though) from the early days of the competition, and built up huge fanbases as a result of that.

Hawthorn were a late entry into the competition. They were bit of a joke club for many years, it wasn't until 1961 when they won their first flag.

The Hawks then won three flags in the 70's, but it was that run of success from that period from 1983-1991, that really saw Hawthorn really announce their arrival as a big club and a major player on the footy scene.

So the Hawks kind of underwent a rags to riches transformation, and those are my reasons for why they don't seem to have the profile of the so called big four clubs.

Considering that Hawthorn have won more flags than anyone else since 1961, i doubt that it's something that bothers their supporters all that much though!

This is pretty much it. Back in the early 20 th century whole suburbs identities were tied up with their footy club. These are the big 4 clubs with their long histories and families that have supported them for generations. Hawthorn do not have that history. In some ways, our recent success has been a hindrance to media coverage. The media loves the big 4 because it’s a guaranteed big audience, but they also love the hard luck/Cinderella stories around St Kilda, Doggies etc. Hawthorn doesn’t fit into either of these categories. Strange given how many ex Hawks are in the media. Not complaining as I’ve seen all 13 flags in my lifetime, but I agree that our off-field success in terms of membership, fan numbers, profile etc lags behind our on field success.

 

[Blackhawk42]

It's actually funny, if there's one thing I can agree upon regarding Geelong it's that both our sides are 5th and 6th in regards to the 'Big 4' conversation.

Both of us feel like we're part of it whenever there is a big game at the G with one of us involved. But ultimately, for whatever reason, we're not in the exclusive Big 4 club.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I've always thought Big 4 referred to off-field strength rather than on-field success. Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond have been the financial backbone of the comp historically, where Hawthorn hasn't ever been as big. Not sure why their success in the 80s didn't garner them more supporters, but you could probably ask the same of North in the 90s.

Big 4 is really now about number of supporters, not financial strength (which is not the same thing). Hawthorn is now (and has been for some time) one of the financial powerhouses of the comp (really only 2nd to West Coast over the last 10-15 years).

Supporter wise, still about 5th.

 

[PerthBoy86]

In terms of geographical area, Richmond and Hawthorn are both based in the east, which is a huge chunk of Melbourne's population, are the eastern suburbs mostly dominated by those two teams or is it a mix? I know where you live doesn't play as big of a role. I think Hawthorn and Melbourne have a reputation for having wealthier supporters too (Jeff Kennett being the figurehand probably adds to that).

Yeah I do think that as the legacies of the past fade away clubs like Carlton and Essendon may drop away if they don't have as much success. I think the Western Bulldogs will grow quite a bit - moreso when they start actually living up to their potential - as the West is growing so rapidly and the Bulldogs more than any Melbourne club is still tied to local identity (I should know I lived in Footscray for 8 years).

In terms of casual supporters it does seem Hawthorn is definitely 5th, so I guess it would be one of the big 5. Yet even during the 3 peat era, how did crowds compare to the Tigers 2017-2020?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

In terms of membership, average crowd figures, apparent casual fans etc, Hawthorn isn't usually grouped with Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond as one of the big 4 Melbourne clubs. Given it's by far the most successful club in the VFL/AFL since the 60s, why is this? I get they were cellar dwellers on the level of North, St Kilda, Footscray for a long time, but that's a long time ago. I understand they gained many fans in the 70s-80s and again in the 10s...yet they almost merged in 1996 with Melbourne, which had the opposite trajectory to Hawthorn: in 1964 Hawthorn had won 1 flag to Melbourne's 12. By 2020 they'd overtaken Melbourne 13 to 12 unbelievably, before Melbourne broke the drought. Kind of cool you have 3 clubs on 13 now.

But yeah, interested to hear some unbiased opinions/thoughts.

Sdit: realise title sounds a bit silly now, but the question is more why they dont have more supporters...or maybe they do but fewer 'serious' ones?

Most of the time, supporters in Victoria are products of who their parents supported rather than who is winning. Therefore, the 'big 4' clubs of the early days remain the big 4 clubs today as their children and grandchildren follow on from who they supported. Changing clubs to a successful team is seen as a huge no-no so success only puts you in the market for 'new' support (ie. those from overseas, new to the game, etc - which is really only a small % of the footy ingrained/mad Victorian populace)

Hawthorn's support still has grown considerably through its success in modern times though.

Up to and including the 60's, Hawthorn would have been the smallest Victorian club (well behind Melbourne and even North, Footscray and Fitzroy).

After all of our success in the 70's and 80's, Hawthorn grew to a 'mid tier' Victorian club, passing Melbourne, North, Footscray and Fitzroy - but still smaller than the the mid tier clubs like S.Kilda and Geelong.

These days, Hawthorn is clearly the biggest of the mid tier clubs and probably the "5th beatle" in Victoria, given some its comparable numbers to the big 4 at times.

Given Hawthorn also has one of if not the highest junior membership proportion in the league, I suspect it will continue to grow.

With all that said, 'Big 4' is old school and pretty meaningless now. We are #1 for success in all of our lifetimes and are a powerhouse financially so what does it matter if other, less successful clubs have more supporters. IT offers no real advantages except greater difficulty getting seats, memberships, grand final tickets, etc.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

I expect in 10 - 15 years time when sustained failure and various scandals at Blues and Bombers their numbers will fall further as the current group of 10 - 25 year olds start to come through.

Not sure what you are on about here (other than a sly dig at Carlton and Essendon). I'm not sure if Big 4 is a thing or not but speaking for Carlton, we have more members than we ever have in the 10-25 year old range. It was a decaying membership but its been turned around in the last few years.

We finished on the bottom in 2018/2019 and still broke our membership records (I think Essendon the same).

I think as people mentioned earlier these big older clubs have a huge latent historical support.

 

[Tiger2709]

We're usually too busy hosting business events in our Toorak mansions to attend the games. Not to mention our TVs are bigger than the ones at the G. We do, however, charge visitors more for our champagne and caviar.

Did the Hawthorn/Melbourne merge go ahead and I missed it?

No cheese?

 

[PerthBoy86]

Hawthorn's support still has grown considerably through its success in modern times though.

Up to and including the 60's, Hawthorn would have been the smallest Victorian club (well behind Melbourne and even North, Footscray and Fitzroy).

After all of our success in the 70's and 80's, Hawthorn grew to a 'mid tier' Victorian club, passing Melbourne, North, Footscray and Fitzroy - but still smaller than the the mid tier clubs like S.Kilda and Geelong.

These days, Hawthorn is clearly the biggest of the mid tier clubs and probably the "5th beatle" in Victoria, given some its comparable numbers to the big 4 at times.

Given Hawthorn also has one of if not the highest junior membership proportion in the league, I suspect it will continue to grow.

With all that said, 'Big 4' is old school and pretty meaningless now. We are #1 for success in all of our lifetimes and are a powerhouse financially so what does it matter if other, less successful clubs have more supporters. IT offers no real advantages except greater difficulty getting seats, memberships, grand final tickets, etc.

That makes sense. I get the sense Melbourne even in the 50s didn't have as much support as Coll, Carl, Ess etc. Maybe it just lacked a strong identity. I suppose if the Bulldogs or St Kilda had the same success as the Hawks they'd be as big now.

 

[Aphrodite]

I always think of the AFL "Big 4" as a product of the 70s and 80s. Back then you could clearly say that Pies, Blues, Bombers and Tigers were the most followed teams in the comp. So different now with Eagles and Crows right up there, Hawks too. I expect in 10 - 15 years time when sustained failure and various scandals at Blues and Bombers their numbers will fall further as the current group of 10 - 25 year olds start to come through.

Right now I think Pies and Tigers and to a lesser extent Cats are the power clubs of Victoria. Hawks should be there to but personally I always feel like they lack a bit of identity - that may be more so when the whole Dingley thing happens.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

Simple, it’s based on supporter base for the Victorian clubs. Hawthorn sits on the middle plane with Geelong. Would they give a toss given their sustained onfield excellence for 65 years? No.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

I always think of the AFL "Big 4" as a product of the 70s and 80s. Back then you could clearly say that Pies, Blues, Bombers and Tigers were the most followed teams in the comp. So different now with Eagles and Crows right up there, Hawks too. I expect in 10 - 15 years time when sustained failure and various scandals at Blues and Bombers their numbers will fall further as the current group of 10 - 25 year olds start to come through.

Right now I think Pies and Tigers and to a lesser extent Cats are the power clubs of Victoria. Hawks should be there to but personally I always feel like they lack a bit of identity - that may be more so when the whole Dingley thing happens.

The bit you’ve put in about us and Essendon is delusional. Nothing that’s happened over the past 20 plus years has effected either fan base and it’s been 20 plus years of scandal and horrible performance. We have more supporters which means the majority of their kids will go on to be supporters.

 

[SSSSSS]

Not VFL big 4 but definitely AFL big 3.

Hawks
Geelong
Eagles

 

[juss]

In terms of membership, average crowd figures, apparent casual fans etc, Hawthorn isn't usually grouped with Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond as one of the big 4 Melbourne clubs. Given it's by far the most successful club in the VFL/AFL since the 60s, why is this? I get they were cellar dwellers on the level of North, St Kilda, Footscray for a long time, but that's a long time ago. I understand they gained many fans in the 70s-80s and again in the 10s...yet they almost merged in 1996 with Melbourne, which had the opposite trajectory to Hawthorn: in 1964 Hawthorn had won 1 flag to Melbourne's 12. By 2020 they'd overtaken Melbourne 13 to 12 unbelievably, before Melbourne broke the drought. Kind of cool you have 3 clubs on 13 now.

But yeah, interested to hear some unbiased opinions/thoughts.

Sdit: realise title sounds a bit silly now, but the question is more why they dont have more supporters...or maybe they do but fewer 'serious' ones?

Because what a lot of people still don't understand, is the big 4 is a colloquial traditional nickname for the biggest Melbourne based clubs from the VFL in earlier days. It has nothing to do with a factual metric of who is the biggest 4 clubs in the AFL, otherwise the term would be interchangable each year.

It's a nickname, the big 4 will always be "the big 4" , it will always be Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond because that's what the term refers to.

Mind you the nickname and the term is used less and less often these days, it's sort of become a bit redundant as a nickname.

 

[Juddernaut08]

the big 4 is about size, not success. end of thread.

 

[Taper]

Big 4 term comes from the four clubs that have been able to get over a million people through the gate in home and away seasons.
Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond have all gotten over a million people through the gate several times.
No other club has ever managed to get over a million people through the gate.

 

[evolved2]

Big 4 term comes from the four clubs that have been able to get over a million people through the gate in home and away seasons.
Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond have all gotten over a million people through the gate several times.
No other club has ever managed to get over a million people through the gate.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

Big 4 term comes from the four clubs that have been able to get over a million people through the gate in home and away seasons.
Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond have all gotten over a million people through the gate several times.
No other club has ever managed to get over a million people through the gate.

It doesn’t strictly come from that, it comes from us having the biggest historical and current supporter bases but now that you mention it it’s a really good way of highlighting it.