Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers
- Thread starter Rasha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
The list is AFL minor premiers since the afl was named in 1990. Its had little significance especially since the final 8 started in 1994
I'm not comparing them Einstein. Learn to read.
Martin is easily the better player.
I wasn't even discussing Martin. I was saying that in the DANGER VS MARTIN THREAD, it had been postulated that Dangerfield must have some sort of allergy to playing well in finals, based on 2-3 games.
When you address and refute a point with anything other than hyperbole, someone will engage you in meaningful conversation. Until you do, you'll keep having the piss taken about your comprehension skils.
They're not in the construction.
Warriors are in the conversion with Bulls. That's it recently.
As a one season team, yes. They put together a freak season in 15-16 and won 73 games. Unprecedented. The Bulls were the first to break 70 and rightly those two sides sit at the top of the "what was the best season put together" tree.
the Warriors won 3 titles over 4 seasons. The Spurs won 3 over 5.
Now were the Warriors a better team? Possibly. I'm not enough of a basketball nuffy to go through the ins and outs of why they are or aren't.
But if they were, it sure as s*it wasn't because they managed to go back to back at one point.
deliberately over egging my comments. Interpreting my comment to a team ‘not trying to win’? It’s the difference in percentage etc between seasons when as you say, it’s the placings which count.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
How is it different though? They had the same coach for all 5, they had Tim Duncan for all 5. Manu, Parker played in 4
What makes you think that once Geelong of 2011 were home most weeks, they didn't cruise as well but were simply that much better than their opposition that they still put more points on them?
They started slow occasionally. they also had an average half-time differential of +22.5 - for context Hawthorn had an average differential after 1 quarter in 2013 of +9.3.
Hawthorn had an average differential at half-time in 2013 of +14, by the way.
So we put the cue in the rack one quarter later, with a bigger lead.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,587
- 48,048
- AFL Club
- West Coast
WC and NM are better teams over the '90s but Adelaide are probably remembered equally as well because of their back-to-back wins. That's because we value premierships above all.
I didn't say that. You said organisations. It's often the word owed with the Spurs.
But no would suggest they were a better team than the Warriors.
Nobody is debating Geelong didn't put the que in the rack in 2011.
But there is people here constantly trying to granularly downplay to each and everyone of Hawthorn's flag.
It appears to me that the Hawks won TOO MANY premierships and too often in sequence.
Last edited:
I agree with your post, but Adelaide aren't a good comparison to the Brisbane or Hawthorn threepeat teams. That Crows team was an historical outlier in that they won back-to-back flags in the middle of a 7-year stretch where they missed the finals in the other 5 years. And their flag seasons were unusual, too, in that they came from fourth and fifth with 13-9 records; they were the very embodiment of peaking at the right time.
If Brisbane and Hawthorn had won three consecutive premierships but missed finals in the years immediately preceding and following those 3-year spans, I'd be voting for Geelong every day of the week, because of their remarkable consistency from 2007-11. But they didn't. Both teams played in another grand final, the Hawks before their threepeat and the Lions after; the Hawks reached a prelim or better in 5 straight seasons, while the Lions did this 5 years in 6 (with a semi appearance in the off year); if you widen the span further, both teams' threepeats were part of a run of 9 finals appearances in 10 seasons - although I accept the sides changed significantly over these 10-year periods, so can't really be considered a continuation of the same eras.
As I've said in previous posts, this debate really comes down to whether the team with the best 5-year span (Geelong) achieved more than teams who weren't as statistically impressive in terms of wins, losses and percentages, but were able to back up their premiership success. Twice. While also having other strong seasons (grand finals, prelims) in the same era.
And while PJays and other posters have made compelling arguments for why they think Geelong's record is superior, for me being able to salute in such a physically demanding league 3 years running - where just one loss can derail everything - is too big an achievement to ignore.
It's bloody close, though - this whole thread is about splitting hears. Richmond winning next year will surely put the debate to bed, though, as I don't think anyone can argue against the merits of 4 flags in 5 years.
The whole point of the thread is dissecting which team was the best. For the purpose of the exercise MOST people have not included Hawthorn's 2008 flag.
If they came out and won a flag this year, it wouldn't be included with the 13-15 flags when discussing dynasties and squad-specific achievements so why would the 08 flag be considered. So whether you agree or not, deal with it - most of the people actively debating this whole issue are of the opinion that Hawthorn is being assessed for 13-15, Geelong is being assessed 07-11, Richmond 17-20, and Brisbane 01-04. You disagree, we get it.
So the discussion went into a tangent about whether sequence matters or not. Some people think it does, some think it doesn't. Most of the statistical analysis has been centred around the fact that sequence shouldn't matter. The counter argument has just been people saying "three in a row is harder and a hat-trick in cricket is better than three wickets in four balls" even though the nett outcome is identical. Again, you disagree, we get it.
No one is trying to somehow say "Hawthorn's flag in such and such a year shouldn't count because of XXXXX." Any flag is good.
What people are doing is objectively rating the various flags on factors like quality of opposition, overall quality of performance across a season that separates teams like Geelong of 2011 from, say the Dogs of 2016 who were mediocre most of the year then played one great month of footy.
One of the primary arguments has been that in 2011 there were two incredibly dominant teams, a third very very good team, and a fourth team that was also of a very high standard.
The counter to that in some quarters was that Hawthorn in 2013 were just as good as Geelong and/or Collingwood in 2011.
A measure of that which can be used to compare them is win loss records, percentage, who they did and didn't beat, etc etc.
Someone - I thought it was you but could have been one of the other Hawthorn fans - postulated that "well Hawthorn were just so dominant in first quarters in 2013 that they already had their games won and didn't have to bother playing out the four quarters. If they did they would have had a higher percentage and looked more dominant."
Well for starters, a 9 point lead at quarter time (what Hawthorn averaged in 2013) isn't a matchwinning lead. Secondly, Geelong at half-time in 2011 led by far more than what Hawthorn averaged in 2013, so what's to say THEY didn't just cruise because they already had the game under control? Maybe their massive 2011 percentage was only half of what it could have been if they didn't "go into cruise control with the games won at half time."
It's exactly those reasons that a lot of people disagree with you. Brisbane played 5 years, won 3 comps, made 4 GFs and a prelim. That is identical to what Geelong did. Just a different sequence.
Additionally a major part of assessing these sides is the hypothetical "who would win if they were thrown into battle against one another."
When Tom Hawkins lines up for goal on Mal Michael or Brian Lake, he doesn't suddenly stop and think "hang on I can't kick this because these guys won their flags in 3 years, we won ours in 5."
Last edited:
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
Here's the thing. You can call Adelaide an historical outlier, but I would say we can use Adelaide to illustrate the point that it's easier to win back to back than to win 2 flags in 4 years (like North), or 2 in 3 years (like WC). We know that sometimes everything clicks into place for one magical season, or finals campaign, like the Doggies in 16. Well I would argue that it is much more likely for such a magical clicking into place to occur in 2 consecutive years than on 2 occasions 4 years apart. You can win 2 in a row, like Adelaide, and still be more of a flash in the pan than a North or a WC, who were top 4 sides for extended periods. A cricket over is nothing like 6 seasons of football. There is nothing harder for the bowler in the 4th 5th and 6th balls of the over than for the first 3. In footy, though, it's incredibly hard to keep an elite team together for 6 years, given salary cap pressures, retirements, strategic innovations, other clubs improving into their ideal premiership window. That's where the hat-trick analogy completely breaks down.
3-peating is obviously not being a flash in the pan, but I would still argue that it's easier for everything to go right 3 years in a row than 3 times spread over a 5 or 6 year span. I think this is borne out when we look closely at the players on the dynasty teams. Brisbane are getting a lot of love in this thread, but I don't think it bears scrutiny. They had a core of about 8 elite players, and a bottom tier who were pretty bloody average. I don't think it's a coincidence that they were not a contender for longer than 4 years. Conversely, Geelong, who by most metrics had by far the greatest depth of elite players (17 AA players in 09) were able to remain genuine contenders for much longer. On Hawthorn, rather than the 3-peat, that's why I actually think Hawthorn winning in 08 then 13-15 is incredible. To me it's not the consecutive nature of the 3-peat that's the impressive part there, it's winning 4 flags over an 8 year period.
You might say that my argument supports the idea that Hawthorn were the best team. Well, yes and no. They achieved the most, winning 4 flags. But I also think they kind of fluked the 08 flag, pulling off a 1 in 20 victory. That's why in this thread we have been looking at a whole bunch of other measures, which all tend to suggest Geelong were the better team.
The Hawks were up by an average of three goals when up in the first quarter, the same as Geelong. That's impressive to be up by three goals when leading in the first quarter.
The difference is that the Hawks won 15 first quarters to Geelong's 11.
And Isaac Smith doesn't line up for a shot after the siren and think, "I can't kick this. These guys won 105 games out of 125." Oh hang on......
But seriously, my view is while hypothetical player v player, team v team match-ups are fun, it's hard to get a clear sense of who would win due to changes in tactics, fitness levels, etc. For instance, the Brisbane threepeat team and the current Richmond teams belong to very different eras. At least Geelong and Hawthorn played enough big games between 2008 and 2016 to get some sense of how the teams compared, albeit peak Geelong with Ablett, Ottens, Scarlett and Ling never played peak Hawthorn with Lake, Gunston, Hill and McEvoy.
Statistical comparisons - in terms of win-loss records, what teams achieved and who they beat during their eras - seems to me the best way to settle this debate. But even then it's a matter of opinion as to which statistical records count for more.
When leading. What's to say that Geelong didn't start in cruise control, get a jolt, then put the game to bed in the space of one quarter?
The nett outcome is the same. team puts foot to floor, runs over opposition, game over in quick time. Point is when we got in front, we got home in a canter. trying to find reasons for why Hawthorn's percentage was inferior is immaterial in comparison to the simple fact that it was, statistically, inferior.
i agree totally but i would assume in this fantasy world where all four sides meet, they would all be on an even scale of physical preparation etc etc.
Everyone knows someone like, say, Tony Lockett with modern fitness standards etc probably wouldn't be nearly as effective - but had someone with Lockett's natural ability and strength and marking been bought up his whole life in today's environment, you would like to think he would adapt and be able to keep up with today's physical standards.
In my view, the real core of the issue is how impressive Geelong was in 2007 and 2011. They simply obliterated their competition in both years. They never backed up a premiership, but the three premierships they won were just that much more impressive. In fact, their three premiership years were that much more impressive, when considered as individual seasons.
If Geelong had say, won their 2007 finals by a combined total of 74 points (average winning 24.7 points) like Hawthorn did in 2013, this would be a closer debate in my mind.
If Geelong had stumbled in the 2011 finals, losing in week 1 like Hawthorn did in 2015 then this would be a closer debate in my mind.
But they didn’t.
They won 2 finals by over 100 points in 2007! Something no one else has ever achieved, I’m pretty sure.
In 2011 they had 3 comfortable victories in a row, against opponents with a combined home and away record of 55-11. (Even if you removed all the wins against the weak bottom 4, this would still be a better combined record than the finals teams who lost to the premier, in almost any other year). West Coast were unbeatable at home and still decent elsewhere, Hawthorn were very good, and Collingwood were next level. Geelong beat them all. Easily!
Those two achievements are greater than anything Hawthorn, Brisbane or Richmond did. And when you consider Geelong also beat a team who won 19 games in a row in 2009, it's collectively just incredibly impressive.
I guess what I'm saying is this: Not all flags are equal. Geelong's were better, overall.
People think Brisbane and Hawthorn's flags were automatically better, simply because they won the year before. Without regard for opposition, or how impressive they were in the finals or how good they were in the home and away season or anything else. And that seems to be literally the only argument you could make for Hawthorn or Brisbane. (Other than "Brisbane travelled"). But I just can't accept that backing up a flag is necessarily more impressive than falling off the cliff- in the eyes of many- and then climbing the summit again- and going to higher heights than ever before.
So the one possible argument for Hawthorn and Brisbane ("they backed up") is equalled by something Geelong did- something different but equally impressive ("they returned with a vengeance after a long time previously at the top"). And then all other factors, all other measures, literally every single other thing you can think of points towards Geelong. That's why they're easily the greatest.
Last edited:
That's the only Grand Final you can argue the Hawks fluked, 08. Although you couldn't blame it on umpiring as Geelong had the better of it, you can't blame it on injuries because Geelong had the better of it... Also as you say winning over a longer period is better where as Geelong had the momentum in 08 so......
Geelong fluked 09, they had a point converted into a goal, had the umpiring help them on day on top of unusual bounces in their favour, had the weather in their favour as St Kilda preferred a dry game, they ALSO lost the first three quarters! Is there a bigger Bradbury in AFL history?
2011 was also a fluke, they were down half way in the third quarter to a team that was running out of juice at the end of the season, a team with injuries, a team with coaching dramas. To top it off Pods gets injured and Geelong inadvertently structure better with only once key forward in Hawkins which helps them run over the Pies, no thanks to Scott. It's no surprise he's yet to win another without fluking it.
So Geelong's tactic was to secretly sabotage themselves in 50% of games (in which they lost the first quarter) cause they turned up to games asleep. Intriguing, tell me more.
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
OK
St Kilda and Collingwood showed they weren't as good as everyone thought at the time and more of a flash in the pan.
- Status
