Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers

Which dynasty is the greatest?


  • Total voters
    531

Remove this Banner Ad

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
Here's the thing.

Hawthorn's best 3 year period was greater than Geelong's best 3 year period. So was Brisbane's.

But Geelong's best 5 year period was greater than the best 5 year period produced by any others.

Doesn't that actually make them a better team?

The longer you perform at a very high level, the more impressive you are. Usually. This is a fairly well established principle of human performance, period. Business, investing, entertainment, the arts, sport... whatever. Anyone can be a "flash in the pan" or a "one hit wonder".

See, I could argue the greatest half of the 2017 season belonged to St.Kilda. We kicked 14.8 to 1.4 against the premier. I was there. It was glorious! For a brief, fleeting moment...

But it was a half of footy. Obviously St.Kilda didn't play like that very often, or for long, otherwise we would've won the flag. Or at least made finals!

Similarly, Essendon of 2000 played a greater season than anyone in this discussion. (Yes, perhaps even greater than Geelong of 2011!).

All these teams were great for 4 or 5 years. But Geelong bookended a 5 year period with two of the greatest flags of the AFL era.

In my view, if they'd won 08 against Hawthorn instead of losing, but then been comfortably beaten by Collingwood in 2011.... they'd be less impressive, not more impressive.

But they'd have a 3 peat.

See the whole "3 peat" vs "3 in 5" is a furphy. A distraction. What matters is the flags that were actually won, and the games that were actually played. And what actually happened.

The idea that a flag is automatically greater, simply and purely because the winner won a flag 12 months earlier (or the 2 preceding years) without any regard for any other factors or a consideration of any other surrounding circumstances whatsoever, is just irrational.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
6,937
5,512
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
The idea that a flag is automatically greater, simply and purely because the winner won a flag 12 months earlier (or the 2 preceding years) without any regard for any other factors or a consideration of any other surrounding circumstances whatsoever, is just irrational.
Using this theory, the most dominant finals series in the history of the competition was played by......




Western Bulldogs in 2016.

Four finals wins in a single finals series.

1, 2, 3, 4.

Bang.

Against the 6th, 4th, 3rd and top seeded teams

And because finals are the only games that count, Western Bulldogs of 2016 are the greatest team in the history of the game.

Not in dispute.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
Using this theory, the most dominant finals series in the history of the competition was played by......




Western Bulldogs in 2016.

Four finals wins in a single finals series.

1, 2, 3, 4.

Bang.

Against the 6th, 4th, 3rd and top seeded teams

And because finals are the only games that count, Western Bulldogs of 2016 are the greatest team in the history of the game.

Not in dispute.
Didn't Noidnadroj make a comment in this thread, not too long ago, overrating the greatness of the 2016 Dogs?
Maybe 2007 was a missed opportunity for Richmond?
View attachment 1039633
Or maybe it wasn't...
2007 can't have been that weak a year- the only year between 2004 and 2011 that St.Kilda missed the finals.

IIRC they were struggling with implementing Lyon’s game plan, after the one dimensional, bomb-and-run Thomas era.

Harvey, Thompson and Gehrig were getting older, Hamill's career was over. Hudghton and Maguire were stifled by injuries.

We needed to refresh and add more role players, which happened the next year.

But we still had loads of guns in their primes, and missed the finals. No season is truly that much weaker than any other.

But there are years where the main flag competitors are better than most years. That's what Geelong faced from 2008-2011. Especially 2011.
 
Last edited:

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Didn't Noidnadroj make a comment in this thread, not too long ago, overrating the greatness of the 2016 Dogs?

2007 can't have been that weak a year- the only year between 2004 and 2011 that St.Kilda missed the finals.

IIRC they were struggling with implementing Lyon’s game plan, after the one dimensional, bomb-and-run Thomas era.

Harvey, Thompson and Gehrig were getting older, Hamill's career was over. Hudghton and Maguire were stifled by injuries.

But we still had loads of guns in their primes, and missed the finals.
LOL. Have a listen to yourself.

Collingwood and St Kilda are great opponents in 2009 and 2011…because of their supreme home and away records in those seasons, despite below average lead-up form to the Grand Finals. But second third and fourth teams with way below average records for those positions in 2007 magically become good because StKilda missed the finals. 😂😂😂. And because Hamlet’s career was tragically over. Oh and Cats nearly lose the PF to one of those shockingly weak finalists in 2007….because the MCG. 😭😭😭

You are now just typing totally reactive answers. Just stop, think it through, think, PJays, does this make enough sense to actually post on a public forum…..😩😩😩
 

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Using this theory, the most dominant finals series in the history of the competition was played by......




Western Bulldogs in 2016.

Four finals wins in a single finals series.

1, 2, 3, 4.

Bang.

Against the 6th, 4th, 3rd and top seeded teams

And because finals are the only games that count, Western Bulldogs of 2016 are the greatest team in the history of the game.

Not in dispute.
Show us a better finals series than that played by the Bulldogs in 2016….

According to your Tinder date the finals series was not all that because they didn’t deserve home finals. 😂😂😂😂
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda

  • LOL. Have a listen to yourself.

    Collingwood and St Kilda are great opponents in 2009 and 2011…because of their supreme home and away records in those seasons,

Not just Collingwood and St.Kilda. The entire top 4 were collectively better in those years. Hawthorn 2011 and Bulldogs 2009 for example were better teams than some of the losing Grand Finalists we've been discussing. Eg Coll 2002, GWS 2019. And yep, I'd add Port 2007 too. Their Grand final lead up was impressive, but I'm of the view that I'd rather play an interstate team, than a Victorian team with the crowd behind them. This also applies to West Coast 2015. I'd rather play them at the MCG than Hawthorn 2011.
 

Noidnadroj

Senior List
Dec 8, 2020
232
221
AFL Club
Richmond
As opposed to Richmond who played the 13-9 GWS in the Grand Final, and was actually knocked out by a 15-7 Collingwood? Not just knocked out. Smashed.

Just FYI the combined record of Richmond’s GF opponents has been 40-20-1.

Geelong's? 72-16.

With 3 of those losses genuine dead rubbers when they were already guaranteed the minor premiership.

Just a hint. Don't bother playing the numbers game with Richmond vs Geelong. You'll lose hard, every time, as Meteoric Rise has been finding out for 116 pages.

Just be honest. Just say "I believe, in my heart of hearts, that Richmond is the greatest!".

Or keep trying other arguments.

But stay away from the numbers. The data. The stats. They won't work for you.
I’m exploring the quality of 2007. So you could answer the question if you wish.... was there a weaker season than 2007 in the dynasty years? Not a hard question. Nothing to do with 2009 or 2011.... was 2007 a strong year?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Noidnadroj

Senior List
Dec 8, 2020
232
221
AFL Club
Richmond
Was this the same Richmond who were 6-5 away from the MCG?

The same Richmond who lost 3 games to teams outside the 8?

Remind me...was this the same Richmond who lost 4 in a row?

The same Richmond who lost by 76 against Adelaide, 16.14 to 4.1 after quarter time?

Wait.... wasn't this the Richmond who managed to kick one goal in a half against a Saints (who were in the middle of a 9 year stretch without finals) and found themselves 82 points down at the half?

You think that Richmond would finish clear on top, do you? 🧐

Right.
Ummm ... yeah. I think Richmond of 2017 was a much better team than Port, Eagles, Pies or Kangas of 2007.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I’m exploring the quality of 2007. So you could answer the question if you wish.... was there a weaker season than 2007 in the dynasty years? Not a hard question. Nothing to do with 2009 or 2011.... was 2007 a strong year?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
You just don’t get it Noidnad….2007 was a powerfully strong year because St Kilda had about 12 excuses to miss the finals….or something. 🤪🤪🤪
 

Noidnadroj

Senior List
Dec 8, 2020
232
221
AFL Club
Richmond
Maybe 2007 was a missed opportunity for Richmond?
View attachment 1039633
Or maybe it wasn't...
At least the lack of an answer confirms my suspicion that 2007 was the weakest season.... and by a fair stretch. But this doesn’t mean their dynasty wasn’t the greatest ... just means in the absence of anything to dispute it 2007 was the easiest flag.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
At least the lack of an answer confirms my suspicion that 2007 was the weakest season.... and by a fair stretch. But this doesn’t mean their dynasty wasn’t the greatest ... just means in the absence of anything to dispute it 2007 was the easiest flag.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
So what you are telling me Noidnad, is that this feted Geelong Cats outfit that is clearly the best dynasty of the four….never beat any team in a Grand Final that had both a strong home and away season AND a strong finals series?

Wow.
 

Noidnadroj

Senior List
Dec 8, 2020
232
221
AFL Club
Richmond
Here's the thing.

Hawthorn's best 3 year period was greater than Geelong's best 3 year period. So was Brisbane's.

But Geelong's best 5 year period was greater than the best 5 year period produced by any others.

Doesn't that actually make them a better team?

The longer you perform at a very high level, the more impressive you are. Usually. This is a fairly well established principle of human performance, period. Business, investing, entertainment, the arts, sport... whatever. Anyone can be a "flash in the pan" or a "one hit wonder".

See, I could argue the greatest half of the 2017 season belonged to St.Kilda. We kicked 14.8 to 1.4 against the premier. I was there. It was glorious! For a brief, fleeting moment...

But it was a half of footy. Obviously St.Kilda didn't play like that very often, or for long, otherwise we would've won the flag. Or at least made finals!

Similarly, Essendon of 2000 played a greater season than anyone in this discussion. (Yes, perhaps even greater than Geelong of 2011!).

All these teams were great for 4 or 5 years. But Geelong bookended a 5 year period with two of the greatest flags of the AFL era.

In my view, if they'd won 08 against Hawthorn instead of losing, but then been comfortably beaten by Collingwood in 2011.... they'd be less impressive, not more impressive.

But they'd have a 3 peat.

See the whole "3 peat" vs "3 in 5" is a furphy. A distraction. What matters is the flags that were actually won, and the games that were actually played. And what actually happened.

The idea that a flag is automatically greater, simply and purely because the winner won a flag 12 months earlier (or the 2 preceding years) without any regard for any other factors or a consideration of any other surrounding circumstances whatsoever, is just irrational.
The major flaw in your point is this thread is debating the greatest ‘dynasty’, which literally means consecutive years of rule. Geelong ruled for no more than one consecutive season. So it’s reasonable for people to have a view their dynasty lacked the MOST important ingredient of what a true sporting dynasty involves .... consecutive championships.

You don’t rate this over other elements which is fine .... it’s also understandable that majority do.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Noidnadroj

Senior List
Dec 8, 2020
232
221
AFL Club
Richmond
Didn't Noidnadroj make a comment in this thread, not too long ago, overrating the greatness of the 2016 Dogs?

2007 can't have been that weak a year- the only year between 2004 and 2011 that St.Kilda missed the finals.

IIRC they were struggling with implementing Lyon’s game plan, after the one dimensional, bomb-and-run Thomas era.

Harvey, Thompson and Gehrig were getting older, Hamill's career was over. Hudghton and Maguire were stifled by injuries.

We needed to refresh and add more role players, which happened the next year.

But we still had loads of guns in their primes, and missed the finals. No season is truly that much weaker than any other.

But there are years where the main flag competitors are better than most years. That's what Geelong faced from 2008-2011. Especially 2011.
how many times do you have to beat that main competitor in order to win a flag ...?



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
6,937
5,512
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
The major flaw in your point is this thread is debating the greatest ‘dynasty’, which literally means consecutive years of rule. Geelong ruled for no more than one consecutive season. So it’s reasonable for people to have a view their dynasty lacked the MOST important ingredient of what a true sporting dynasty involves .... consecutive championships.
So does this mean Richmond should be held on a par with the great Adelaide side of 1997/98, and we completely disregard their 2017/18 seasons?

Because if that is the case, why are Richmond and Geelong even in the discussion?

For what it's worth, there is no 'literal' meaning for a sporting dynasty, by virtue of the fact we don't see teams winning the title for decades or centuries on end.

So 'consecutive years of rule' for hereditary monarchical regimes in China for example is very different to what we will see with a sporting dynasty, and different commentators will have different views as to what actually constitutes a 'dynasty'.

Further, given the short term nature of 'years of consecutive rule' in sport (i.e. 4 years is the longest sequence in 124 seasons of VFL/AFL), it could reasonably be argued that LONGEVITY at or around the top whilst winning and contending for premierships' is THE most important criteria.
 
Last edited:

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
Ummm ... yeah. I think Richmond of 2017 was a much better team than Port, Eagles, Pies or Kangas of 2007.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
The assertion you made was that Richmond 2017 would finish clear on top after the H&A season.

You've really gotta stop accusing people of failing to answer, when you're either dodging or misunderstanding their answers. Or shifting the goalposts.
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
this feted Geelong Cats outfit that is clearly the best dynasty of the four….never beat any team in a Grand Final that had both a strong home and away season AND a strong finals series?
You've missed or ignored my point from earlier.

I assume ignored, which allows you to pretend you're actually winning the substantive arguments by beating strawmen. That's your usual shtick ;)

I'm onto you. Doesn't take a 🧐 to notice.

Let me summarise.

Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.

Which of these, in your view, had a "strong finals series" before the GF?

Brisbane 2003 - Lost a game

Geelong 2007- Won a prelim by 5 against 6th placed 13-9 Coll

Hawthorn 2013- Won prelim by 5, after being down by 17 in Q2 and 20 at 3qtr time

Hawthorn 2014- Won prelim by 3 against 5th placed 14-8 Port

Hawthorn 2015- Got smashed in a game. Down by 50 odd at 3 qtr time.

Richmond 2019- Came from 21 down at the half. Took until very late 4th to gets the Cats "in the bag".

Richmond 2020- Lost a game. Won prelim by a goal.

Many premiers lose a final. Or win a tight prelim against a vastly inferior opponent. St Kilda and Collingwood were virtually undefeated all year (losing one non dead rubber between them) and both were undefeated in finals. Both won prelims against opponents who were tougher matchups in Melbourne than many GF opponents.

St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers.

(And of course, better H&A seasons than any of them. Proving their ability over 6 months).
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
The major flaw in your point is this thread is debating the greatest ‘dynasty’, which literally means consecutive years of rule. Geelong ruled for no more than one consecutive season. So it’s reasonable for people to have a view their dynasty lacked the MOST important ingredient of what a true sporting dynasty involves .... consecutive championships.

You don’t rate this over other elements which is fine .... it’s also understandable that majority do.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Dynasty is a very subjective concept, in context of a vastly equalised sport where its rare for a team to be a genuine contender for any more than 4 or 5 years straight (making Geelong's ongoing effort even more impressive. But I digress).

Arguably only Brisbane and Hawthorn were true dynasties, if you insist on consecutive reign. Richmond was smashed in the 2018 finals. Didn't even make the Grand Final. Was that part of their "dynasty"?

And that's only their 3peats with Brisbane and Hawthorn. 2008 can't be a continuous dynasty when they went 4 straight years without a flag, including 2 straight without getting close to winning a single finals game.

And I'd add, arguably they only reached the status of dynasty after their 3rd flag, after which they were quickly dethroned.

So maybe there's been two dynasties this century, both owning the title for precisely 12 months. (A fortnight less for Hawthorn).

(Edit: Fadge hit the nail on the head in his last post- arguably longevity should be prioritised above all else within the AFL context, ahead of relatively short windows of success. That's a very reasonable approach also).

To avoid all these endless methodological debates which could rage forever, and in fact did rage at points in this thread, I've mostly avoided that by focusing purely on one interesting question:

Who was the greatest team?
 
Last edited:

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
You've missed or ignored my point from earlier.

I assume ignored, which allows you to pretend you're actually winning the substantive arguments by beating strawmen. That's your usual shtick ;)

I'm onto you. Doesn't take a 🧐 to notice.

Let me summarise.

Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.

Which of these, in your view, had a "strong finals series" before the GF?

Brisbane 2003 - Lost a game

Geelong 2007- Won a prelim by 5 against 6th placed 13-9 Coll

Hawthorn 2013- Won prelim by 5, after being down by 17 in Q2 and 20 at 3qtr time

Hawthorn 2014- Won prelim by 3 against 5th placed 14-8 Port

Hawthorn 2015- Got smashed in a game. Down by 50 odd at 3 qtr time.

Richmond 2019- Came from 21 down at the half. Took until very late 4th to gets the Cats "in the bag".

Richmond 2020- Lost a game. Won prelim by a goal.

Many premiers lose a final. Or win a tight prelim against a vastly inferior opponent. St Kilda and Collingwood were virtually undefeated all year (losing one non dead rubber between them) and both were undefeated in finals. Both won prelims against opponents who were tougher matchups in Melbourne than many GF opponents.

St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers.

(And of course, better H&A seasons than any of them. Proving their ability over 6 months).
Your statements:

"Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.”

"St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers."


Let’s look at those statements against the facts.

Let’s start at 2000 looking for 11 of the 21 Premiers having strong finals series leading into the GF, and/or a stronger finals series than the Saints09 and Pies11 to see if we can disprove your statements…..

Premiers leading into GF:

2000. Essendon win by 125, 45.

2001 Brisbane win by 4.8, and 10.8.

2002 Brisbane win by 71, 56.


2003 Brisbane win their way into the GF with wins of 42, 44 points after what proved an irrelevant QF loss.

2004 Port win by 55, 6 v Saints who finished 3rd with 64 points and 128%, barely below the top 2 teams. Debatable one.

2005 Swans finals wins not overly strong.

2006 Eagles win their way in with wins of 74 and 0.10 away to Adelaide who had topped the table on 68 points and 136%. Those are strong performances.

2007 The Cats recorded a 106 point win and a 0.5 win against Collingwood. The latter game is shown by the results before and after it to be an anomaly. They happen, I am unsure why this one happened.

2008 Hawks won by 51 and 54.

2009 Cats beat by 2.2 the Dogs, who showed themselves to be very close to, if not the second best team in the finals with their finals performances. In any event, Cats were 35 ahead at 3/4 time so with no memory of the match I presume the result was never in any serious doubt. The Cats won the PF by 73 points.

2010 Collingwood win by 62, 41.

2011 Geelong win by 31, 48
.

2012 Sydney win by 29, 26(bigger leads in both at 3/4 time and first match was away to Adelaide who finished regular season 68 points, 132%) As often with Sydney, these were low scoring games so strongish margins.

2013 Hawks win by 54 and 5(with +10 scoring shots.). The latter win against Cats 72 pt season, 136% so strong performance.

2014 Hawks win by 36(5.6) and 3 v Port, who imo were the best team in that finals series.

2015 Hawks win their way in with 74 and 27 point wins, the latter away to Fremantle. Strong performances as Fremantle finished top of the table.

2016. Bulldogs have straight out produced the best finals series I have ever seen.

Beat 16 win 130% Eagles away, by 47, a seriously strong performance.

Beat 17 win season 3rd placed Hawks by 23 points giving away genuine advantage playing at the MCG.

Beat 16 win season 143% highly talented GWS by 1 goal at GWS’ home ground. GWS were clearly the second best team in this finals series.

2017 Tigers win by 51, 36 v top 4 teams.

2018 Eagles win by 16 against the second best team in the finals, Collingwood, then 66.

2019 Tigers win away to Brisbane by 47, then defeat clear top team Cats(17% ahead of anyone else) by leading at 3/4 time and scoring 3.6 v 1.3 in a dominant last term and half.


2020 Tigers a middling win v Saints and a tightly fought 0.6 win away to Port who had also topped the table and recorded a strong percentage.

So what are we comparing those to…..

Saints 09 Beat 4th placed Pies who were about average at best for a 4th placed team, by 28 points but with only +3 s/s.

Fell in against the decent third placed Dogs by 7 points with three less scoring shots.

Pies 11 Beat Eagles off a strong season for 4th, in Melbourne by 20.

Fell in by 3 points with two less scoring shots v Hawks.

—————————————————————————————————
Now I have bolded 14 of the last 21 premiers who without any shadow of a doubt came into their Grand Finals with better finals performances than your two super teams. This shows your statements to be total nonsense.

I could mount an argument that every single Premier has come into the GF off better finals performances than your two super teams. Neither had an impressive finals win, and both were arguably lucky to win their Prelims, both recording less scoring shots than the teams they just beat.

What we can say with great certainty is that many beaten Grand Finalists come into Grand Finals with better finals wins than your two super teams…..

Collingwood 02 and 03 for a start.

Geelong 08

Fremantle 13
Sydney 14
Eagles 15

Crows 17
Cats 20

Have all certainly won their way to their Grand Finals with more impressive finals performances than your two super losers.

In terms purely of finals performances, I am struggling to elevate your Pies 11 and Saints 09 ahead of Bombers 01 and Giants 19, and Port 07. All of these are arguable in different ways.

Your statements don’t wash. These teams may have enjoyed stellar home and away seasons, in fact they did. But their actual finals performances leading to their GF appearances were amongst the weakest handful recorded by any of the 26 dynasty Grand Finalists, albeit the bar is set quite high by the other clubs on the list.
 

Ron The Bear

Come on Sydney, come on!
Jul 4, 2006
33,630
33,527
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Was this the same Richmond who were 6-5 away from the MCG?

The same Richmond who lost 3 games to teams outside the 8?

Remind me...was this the same Richmond who lost 4 in a row?

The same Richmond who lost by 76 against Adelaide, 16.14 to 4.1 after quarter time?

Wait.... wasn't this the Richmond who managed to kick one goal in a half against a Saints (who were in the middle of a 9 year stretch without finals) and found themselves 82 points down at the half?
Ah yes, the year of 'Richmondy'.

From laughing stock to triple champs in 83 games.

St.Kilda one lonely flag from 2413 games.

Admit it, you'd kill to learn the secret.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
6,937
5,512
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
At least the lack of an answer confirms my suspicion that 2007 was the weakest season.... and by a fair stretch. But this doesn’t mean their dynasty wasn’t the greatest ... just means in the absence of anything to dispute it 2007 was the easiest flag.
Some icing on the cake for one of Richmond's wooden spoon years...

Richmond were the weakest team in the weakest year in the history of the AFL.

:astonished: :astonished: :astonished:
 

Remove this Banner Ad