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
The Saints09 and Pies11 both scraped through to Grand Finals on the back of PF’s where they had less scoring shots.
In 2019 and 2020, Richmond played a final where they had less scoring shots than their opponent.

Across the first 2 weeks of their 2020 finals campaign, Richmond had 4 less scoring shots than their opponents. (34 to 38).

In every year of Hawthorn's 3peat, they played a final where they failed to register more scoring shots than their opponent.

Maybe scoring shots aren't that important?

Or maybe Hawthorn and Richmond weren't so great?

Which is it? Tell us.... 🧐
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
8,426
5,901
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Apparently he is a "St Kilda" supporter. LOL

More like a Cat's supporter who created a 2nd BF account so he could vote twice in the poll for Geelong and also post endlessly about how Geelong are the best team wjhile pretending to be a neutral.

He also started a second thread on the main board under his St Kilda account intending to support the premise that Geelong are the best: the topic of the thread was something like "Was 2011 the most difficult premiership ever won?"

And one time he posted how he believed all the people who voted for Hawthorn in the poll were Hawthorn supporters.

It is really small and really funny, and says something about how insecure some Cat's supporters are.
Well whether PJAYS is a cat supporter or not, I couldn't care less. Like you said "some" Cat supporters are insecure.

Anyone who this insecure about their team reminds of Trumpism now or the GOP's in the US.

They're not interested in objective anylsis. They are just believe on reality and they are trying to convince you that their reality is the only true reality.

Every counter point you bring up is just misunderstanding of their reality.

Been a Hawks supporter (and I'm also a AC Milan supporter and used to be a Chicago Bulls fan) so I've seen over the decades what dynasties look like, particularly the best ones. The best ones tend to be:

- long lasting
- changed the game (usually for a long time)
- Had the best players or player
- Always defended their title in successive years
- There was no question if they were the best at the time
- They had a lot imitators

You would probably need all those things to be a sporting dynasty and the extent of those attributes would determine how great of a dyansty.
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
Apparently he is a "St Kilda" supporter. LOL

More like a Cat's supporter who created a 2nd BF account
I reckon there's a few undercover Cats fans around here. A whole group of them.

Trying to convince the BF community that Hawthorn fans are often a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.....
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I didn't ask about finals form.

I asked you to rank the quality of all 13 Runners Up that are relevant to this thread.

Unless you're suggesting finals form is the ONLY consideration? (i.e. throwing out 6 months of results for a data set of 2, maybe 3, games)

So please keep it simple - List of the 13 teams in order of quality, ranked out of 100 for relativity.

My list, for example, ranking the strongest team as 100, and ranking all other teams relatively:
100 - Geelong 2008
99 - Collingwood 2011
97 - St. Kilda 2009
94 - Essendon 2001
91 - Sydney 2014
90 - Adelaide 2017
88 - Fremantle 2013
86 - Geelong 2020
85 - West Coast 2015
83 - Port Adelaide 2007
80 - Collingwood 2003
75 - GWS 2019
70 - Collingwood 2002
Not avoiding the question, but I simply wouldn’t rate teams for matches the way you are doing it. And when you are talking about working out the quality of a GF opponent, you are talking about the actual team that turns up on the day. And the best way I know to work that out is to start from all the instant from and factors then work back from there, being careful to notice any past patterns that could cast doubt on the instant form.

A really good case here would be Richmond, say in the event they get to the 2021 finals after another indifferent first half of the year and strong second half of the year, and with a decent array of players available. Their instant form would probably indicate strong finals form, and their recent years finals performances would indicate strong finals form is likely. Then you would be looking at other patterns, like how long have they been up, and how long in these dynasty teams actually stay up, I’d be looking carefully at age profile, freshness profile, stability profile and so on. I would be considering all of that and more before giving even the smallest amount of thought to what they did in rounds 1-11.

No way would I be betting according to Collingwood11, Saints09, Bombers01, being 3 of the top 4 Grand Final opponents on that list on GF day. Nor Collingwood 02 and 03 being two of the bottom 3, as you have them. Unless there are factors with those teams that are not apparent to me from my current vantage point.

When you look back in hindsight, let’s have a look at the last 21 seasons, and apply two alternative tests or methods to selecting our Premier from the two Grand Finalists. First method:

1. Where the Grand Finalists have met in a QF let’s ignore the result. (4 of the 6 times a solitary QF loser made the GF, they won it. Only Sydney16 and Collingwood18 has failed. In 2020, uniquely, both QF losers made the GF so one had to win it. Four of the five times two teams met in a GF that had also met in a QF, the QF result was reversed in the GF.)

2. Where the two Grand Finalists have had other finals opponents in common, let’s go for the team who has done better in these matches after certain fair adjustments.

3. Where the two Grand Finalists have not met other teams in common, let’s go for the team that appears to have done better after taking all available formlines into account.

We can call that method one, the finals based method

We can then compare that with method two, where we simply take the Grand Finalist who has had the better home and away season based on premiership points and percentage, but to be fair let’s say a team is elevated by one win for every extra 5 percentage points they have over their opponent.

YearMethod 1 Premier based on finals form only with reasonable adjustments for venues in particular.Method 2 Premier based on home and away results wins and %Actual Result
2000Essendon emphaticallyEssendon emphaticallyEssendon 8.12
2001Brisbane comfortablyEssendon justBrisbane 3.8
2002Brisbane comfortablyBrisbane easilyBrisbane by 1.3
2003Brisbane easilyCollingwood justBrisbane 8.2
2004Brisbane by a smallish margin - very confusing formlines thoughlevelPort 40 points, +5 s/s
2005even - the only available common formline has Saints, Crows, Eagles and Swans all roughly level.Eagles comfortablySwans 4 points, -1 s/s
2006Eagles strong margin suggested by formline through Adelaide and Fremantle.Eagles justEagles 0.1
2007Geelong big margin
had probably 21 s/s superiority through North. Also the formline throughEagles and Pies suggest a 13-14 s/s edge after venues considered.
Geelong big marginGeelong 18.11
2008Formline through Saints says Cats by maybe 4 s/s. Formline through Dogs says Hawks by maybe 10 s/s. Overall Hawks by maybe 3 s/s.Geelong easilyHawks by 26 with 9 less scores.

*scores in this match deceiving as Hawks actually had 2 more scoring shots, but rushed 11 behinds most of them deliberate to add to the Cats scores.

2009Formline through Collingwood says Cats by 15 s/s. Through Bulldogs Cats by about 3 s/s.

Overall Cats by 8-9 s/s.
Saints easilyCats by 12 with -3 s/s
2010Collingwood easilyCollingwood comfortablydraw with Pies +5 s/s

replay true to finals and home and away form
2011Geelong by 8 scoring shotsCollingwood comfortablyGeelong by 6.2
2012Hawks approx 8 s/sHawks comfortablySwans 10 points with -5 s/s
2013Hawks 6-8 s/sHawks moderate marginHawks by 15 level s/s
2014Swans approx 4-6 s/sSwans, but almost levelHawks 10.3
2015All finals form says Eagles comfortably betterHawks moderate marginHawks 46
+6 s/s
2016Formline through Cats and Hawks says Bulldogs just. Formline through GWS says Bulldogs easily.

Overall: Bulldogs 4-5 s/s
Swans by big marginBulldogs 3.4
2017Richmond 4-5 s/sCrows comfortablyRichmond 8.0
2018Pies by 8-10 s/sEagles justEagles by 0.5

2019Richmond 3-4 s/sRichmond comfortablyRichmond by 14.5
2020Formline through Port says Tigers just.

Formline through Lions says Cats by a big margin.

Overall you would say Cats by about 8-9 s/s
Geelong justRichmond by 5.1


So there we have two methods compared, one using only home and away form, one using only finals form.

Results

Overall I will credit the finals based method with picking 14.5 Premiers of the 21.

The home and away method I will be kind and say it predicted 10 Premiers of 21.

Say though we compare which method got closer to the actual right result and margin more often….

Finals based method was clearly closer I would say 8 times, the home and away based method got clearly closer to the result 7 times, so this was close.

And which method nails it more often with a correct prediction reflected in winner and margin…..


Giving this one to the finals based method 8-5.

What about how often each method nails it in terms of getting close to the scoring shot differential, regardless of the actual margin, let’s say within 3-4 s/s of the right result…..

Giving this one to the finals-based method 11-7.

———————————————————————
So from where I sit the instant form from the finals is a comfortably stronger indicator than the home and away form as to how teams might perform in Grand Finals.

What about though, when both methods agree on the result…..

7 from 10 times this occurred they had the winner. Surprisingly, this is not really any better than the finals method alone. But it is comfortably better than the home and away method alone.

What about where both methods agree as to winner and rough margin…..

Probably 6 right, 3 wrong and of the 6 correct 4 of the rough margins agreed on turned out about right.
 

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
In 2019 and 2020, Richmond played a final where they had less scoring shots than their opponent.

Across the first 2 weeks of their 2020 finals campaign, Richmond had 4 less scoring shots than their opponents. (34 to 38).

In every year of Hawthorn's 3peat, they played a final where they failed to register more scoring shots than their opponent.

Maybe scoring shots aren't that important?

Or maybe Hawthorn and Richmond weren't so great?

Which is it? Tell us.... 🧐
There is a bit of a difference between having 2-3 less scoring shots and winning by a kick or so, and having 2-3 less scoring shots and winning by 8 goals.

Hawks I have already repeated on the thread several times were lucky to beat Port Adelaide in the 2014 PF with a lot less scoring shots, 8-9 I think. Imo Port were the best team in the finals that season.

In 2013 Hawks had level scoring shots with Fremantle but were the more efficient team and this gave them a fair and pretty predictable and bankable edge.

In 2012, the Hawks had the worst of it in a GF I think they really should have won and would do more often than not if the match was played out over a larger sample of contests.

In 2015 the match you refer to including the Hawks is the irrelevant QF. I just posted in another post, there have been 6 seasons in the last 21 where one team has lost a QF and made the GF. Four of them have won the GF. In 2020, two losing QF teams made the GF so one had to win. Especially where two teams meet in a QF then again in a GF, the QF becomes 100% irrelevant. 4 of the 5 times this has occurred the loser of the QF won the GF. That 2015 QF has exactly zero relevance to anything now.

So with the Hawks, you are hanging your hat on a now irrelevant match, another match they were perfectly entitled to win with level scoring shots, and a match they were outplayed in imo, v a red hot Port who were a genuinely Premiership level team. But you are deliberately overlooking the 2012 GF from which all things being equal they emerge Premiers, again IMO.

With Richmond you are speaking of the now irrelevant QF loss to Brisbane in 2020, and the 2019 QF against the same opponent. Brisbane rightfully won the 2020 match and good luck to them, it got them nowhere and cost Richmond nothing, so it was irrelevant. In the 2019 fixture Brisbane pressed high up the ground causing good repeat entries and thus more scoring shots, from a more crowded forward line and worse positions. The Tigers destroyed them by getting the ball through their press and had a load of easy shots for goal as a result.

This is why shots at goal is not always a reliable indicator of performance. But in the absence of intimate knowledge of every match and forensic examination, it can be as good a guide to the merits of the teams’ respective performances as any.

But you would know that.

Sorry about you being rumbled as a Cats supporter on this thread too by the way. I was trying hard to avoid revealing this on the thread, but those terrible Hawks supporters….😂😂😂
 
Last edited:

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
In 2015 the match you refer to including the Hawks is the irrelevant QF.
You've posted thousands upon thousands of words in this thread. Including some interesting, detailed analysis. But you can't expect to be taken seriously if you keep saying ridiculous things.

This thread is about "Who was the greatest?". That's the underlying context of every discussion.

If you're going to insist that a team getting flogged in a final is irrelevant to how great they were, then you're wasting everyone's time.
 
Last edited:

Final Siren

Mr Squiggle
Aug 18, 2009
4,152
16,987
AFL Club
Richmond
When your team plays an opponent three times in a season and are beaten every time, it's a pretty difficult argument to make that your team was the better team.

Should I be investing my time debating whether Geelong were 1% better, 3% better, or 5% better?
PJays says Geelong's 2011 season was one of the most dominant of all time. So he's not saying they were 1% or 3% of 5% better; he's saying they were much better than everyone else. Which is remarkably dismissive of Collingwood. So yes, I do find it surprising that you're okay with that.

Collingwood 2011 is one of the best teams ever not to win the flag. As late as Round 17, they were on top of the ladder with a 40 percentage point lead over Geelong. Forty percentage points! They finished 1st and were flag favourites. Yes, they never quite figured out how to beat Geelong, and deservedly lost the Grand Final. But to say that Geelong completely dominated 2011 ignores the presence of such a powerhouse competitor, who were comfortable flag favourite for the bulk of the year.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
6,937
5,512
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
PJays says Geelong's 2011 season was one of the most dominant of all time. So he's not saying they were 1% or 3% of 5% better; he's saying they were much better than everyone else. Which is remarkably dismissive of Collingwood. So yes, I do find it surprising that you're okay with that.

Collingwood 2011 is one of the best teams ever not to win the flag. As late as Round 17, they were on top of the ladder with a 40 percentage point lead over Geelong. Forty percentage points! They finished 1st and were flag favourites. Yes, they never quite figured out how to beat Geelong, and deservedly lost the Grand Final. But to say that Geelong completely dominated 2011 ignores the presence of such a powerhouse competitor, who were comfortable flag favourite for the bulk of the year.
The bolded comment has also been suggested by PJays (and myself).

In 2011, Collingwood and Geelong were extremely dominant, with Collingwood losing only to one team, and Geelong only losing three games all year - all home and away and by a combined total of 25 points.

As we know in AFL, there can be two dominant teams in the one season, but only one can win the flag. That Collingwood team would have won most Premierships this century, but unfortunately they ran into a team who had their measure that year, one that PJays and I both agree are the 'greatest' team we have seen this century.
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
PJays says Geelong's 2011 season was one of the most dominant of all time. So he's not saying they were 1% or 3% of 5% better; he's saying they were much better than everyone else. Which is remarkably dismissive of Collingwood.
This was discussed much earlier in the thread.

Basically, dominance doesn't mean you were greater than all of your competitors. It just means you were consistently brilliant and usually much better than your opponent.

For example, if two teams both went 21-1 with average winning margins of 50 points, and only lost to each other, then I'd say they both dominated the season.

This is similar to 2011 (although to a lesser extent). Geelong finished 19-3 and lost 3 games by a combined total of 25 points. The only double figure loss being by 13 against the Eagles in Perth (who lost one game in Perth all year). Collingwood were 20-2 with the best % of the AFL era.

So both teams actually dominated the H&A season.

When the finals rolled around, Geelong won 3 finals comfortably and proved they were the top dogs of 2011. And did it against some of the toughest top 4 competition ever- including Collingwood, plus Clarkson's Hawks- who had added Gibson and Burgoyne since 2008, with Buddy, Hodge etc maturing, and the 17-5 West Coast. Making Geelong's entire season one of the greatest ever. I'd say only Essendon of 2000 have a better claim in the AFL era.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
6,937
5,512
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
You've posted thousands upon thousands of words in this thread. Including some interesting, detailed analysis. But you can't expect to be taken seriously if you keep saying ridiculous things.

This thread is about "Who was the greatest?". That's the underlying context of every discussion.

If you're going to insist that a team getting flogged in a final is irrelevant to how great they were, then you're wasting everyone's time.
Also like his comment that in 2003, Brisbane were easily the best performed finals team heading into the Grand Final. This is despite Brisbane losing to Collingwood by 15 points in the Qualifying Final (Pies with 5 more scoring shots, for what it's worth), and Collingwood then beating the top placed Port Adelaide by 44 points in the Preliminary Final.

I stopped reading at that point.
 

Final Siren

Mr Squiggle
Aug 18, 2009
4,152
16,987
AFL Club
Richmond
This was discussed much earlier in the thread.

Basically, dominance doesn't mean you were greater than all of your competitors. It just means you were consistently brilliant and usually much better than your opponent.

For example, if two teams both went 21-1 with average winning margins of 50 points, and only lost to each other, then I'd say they both dominated the season.

This is similar to 2011 (although to a lesser extent). Geelong finished 19-3 and lost 3 games by a combined total of 25 points. The only double figure loss being by 13 against the Eagles in Perth (who lost one game in Perth all year). Collingwood were 20-2 with the best % of the AFL era.

So both teams actually dominated the H&A season.

When the finals rolled around, Geelong won 3 finals comfortably and proved they were the top dogs of 2011. And did it against some of the toughest top 4 competition ever- including Collingwood, plus Clarkson's Hawks- who had added Gibson and Burgoyne since 2008, with Buddy, Hodge etc maturing, and the 17-5 West Coast. Making Geelong's entire season one of the greatest ever. I'd say only Essendon of 2000 have a better claim in the AFL era.
Heh, ok, if you define dominance like that, then I guess you can indeed make the argument that multiple teams dominated the same season!

That does seem pretty silly, though. If your point is that they were a great team, say they were a great team. You don't need to start co-opting words like "dominant" (and "dynasty").
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
8,426
5,901
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Heh, ok, if you define dominance like that, then I guess you can indeed make the argument that multiple teams dominated the same season!

That does seem pretty silly, though. If your point is that they were a great team, say they were a great team. You don't need to start co-opting words like "dominant" (and "dynasty").
Are you sure we can't have 17 dominant teams?
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
Heh, ok, if you define dominance like that, then I guess you can indeed make the argument that multiple teams dominated the same season!

That does seem pretty silly, though. If your point is that they were a great team, say they were a great team. You don't need to start co-opting words like "dominant" (and "dynasty").
Both teams dominated the H&A season, but Geelong were the only ones who dominated the entire year.

You can't have two teams who dominate the entire year, as there's only one premier.

Geelong's QF and PF were more convincing than Collingwood's wins, and they beat Collingwood comfortably in the GF. Giving them a 3-0 H2H advantage.

This meant Geelong had:
  • Elite H&A record.
  • Elite H&A %.
  • Won all their finals convincingly.
  • Held a 6-0 record against their GF opponent and the team who finished 3rd.
How many teams can tick all those boxes?

If Geelong of 2011 didn’t have a dominant season then no one in my life time has- except Essendon of 2000.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Meteoric Rise

Club Legend
Feb 4, 2008
2,144
6,061
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
You've posted thousands upon thousands of words in this thread. Including some interesting, detailed analysis. But you can't expect to be taken seriously if you keep saying ridiculous things.

This thread is about "Who was the greatest?". That's the underlying context of every discussion.

If you're going to insist that a team getting flogged in a final is irrelevant to how great they were, then you're wasting everyone's time.
My quest is to devise methods to work out who is best, not to please you Geelong supporters.

You win the Grand Final, or the Premiership, you win the competition, end of story. Grand Finalists who have lost Qualifying Finals have routinely won their Grand Finals. So losing a QF final is clearly no handicap if you are good enough.

If you are trying to work out who is the greatest, why would you factor in something that appears irrelevant into your calculations?

And remember you are the poster who is trying to measure greatness by home and away performance. In my post #2,955 I show two methods for predicting Grand Final winners. One method relies solely upon finals performance, the other relies solely on home and away performance. The method that relies solely on finals performance performs better no matter how I measured the effectiveness of the two methods. The home and away reliant method predicts less than half the winners, ie a person flipping a coin could do better. To be clear, in the sample I have used, home and away performance is actually a negative indicator. But the most interesting thing about this analysis, is that the finals method has a strike rate around 70%, whereas both methods agree on the winner, is also 70%.

So not only is performance in finals a better guide as to a team’s chances of winning a Grand Final, it appears that combining home and away performance with finals performance adds nothing to the strike rate of picking Grand Final winners that the finals performance only method doesn’t achieve.

So whilst you THINK you are taking into account a major factor when you are considering a team’s home and away performance in working out how great they are, you are actually probably taking into account a factor rendered obscure by finals performance.

The object of the competition is to win the Premiership. The best, most reliable, and easiest method I can devise of selecting Premiership winners from two known Grand Final cambatants is to:

1) largely ignore QF Final losses
2) consider Finals performance only
3) ignore home and away performance

You mightn’t like it, but the method is there layed out for you to better if you can find more important and reliable indicators of Grand Final success.

You might argue then as you have hinted at doing at times that the finals series is an unfair method of working out the Premier. I would counter this by saying that the rules of the competition are known in advance. Teams have to qualify any way they can for a Preliminary Final berth then win that game and the Grand Final to win the competition. That IS what the competition IS. Winning huge amounts of home and away matches might grab people’s attention, but beyond a certain point those wins have no value in the competition.
 
Last edited:

Final Siren

Mr Squiggle
Aug 18, 2009
4,152
16,987
AFL Club
Richmond
Both teams dominated the H&A season, but Geelong were the only ones who dominated the entire year.

You can't have two teams who dominate the entire year, as there's only one premier.

Geelong's QF and PF were more convincing than Collingwood's wins, and they beat Collingwood comfortably in the GF. Giving them a 3-0 H2H advantage.

This meant Geelong had:
  • Elite H&A record.
  • Elite H&A %.
  • Won all their finals convincingly.
  • Held a 6-0 record against their GF opponent and the team who finished 3rd.
How many teams can tick all those boxes?

If Geelong of 2011 didn’t have a dominant season then no one in my life time has- except Essendon of 2000.
This is all fine except for where you shoehorn in a weird definition of "dominant" at the end, instead of just saying "great."

Multiple teams can dominate a home & away season but only one team can dominate a full season? There's no reason to dance around definitions like that if you just say what you mean, instead of trying to lean on inferred meanings of a word that don't actually apply.
 

PJays

All Australian
Nov 2, 2020
669
749
AFL Club
St Kilda
This is all fine except for where you shoehorn in a weird definition of "dominant" at the end, instead of just saying "great."

Multiple teams can dominate a home & away season but only one team can dominate a full season? There's no reason to dance around definitions like that if you just say what you mean, instead of trying to lean on inferred meanings of a word that don't actually apply.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Geelong had a dominant year in 2011.

Collingwood had a dominant H&A season before being shown up in finals by a greater team.

Geelong's 2011 year was the 2nd most dominant year of the AFL era. (You could make an argument for Carlton 1995 or Geelong 2007 but I'd rate Geelong 2011 ahead based on consistent finals performances).

There is absolutely nothing complicated, convoluted, or unclear about this. Nothing at all.
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
8,426
5,901
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
This is all fine except for where you shoehorn in a weird definition of "dominant" at the end, instead of just saying "great."

Multiple teams can dominate a home & away season but only one team can dominate a full season? There's no reason to dance around definitions like that if you just say what you mean, instead of trying to lean on inferred meanings of a word that don't actually apply.
Maybe he thinks you can dominate in collusion. You guys dominate over there and we dominate over here. Just don't dominate when we play each other!
 

Noidnadroj

Senior List
Dec 8, 2020
232
221
AFL Club
Richmond
You've posted thousands upon thousands of words in this thread. Including some interesting, detailed analysis. But you can't expect to be taken seriously if you keep saying ridiculous things.

This thread is about "Who was the greatest?". That's the underlying context of every discussion.

If you're going to insist that a team getting flogged in a final is irrelevant to how great they were, then you're wasting everyone's time.
I think he’s saying there is evidence that losing a QF actually may increase your chance of winning the Premiership. And if Premierships are the number one goal then why would a QF loss be regarded as a negative...

I think there are logical reasons why a QF loss can help. If you’re coming into finals off a decent winning streak, it means you don’t need to continue extending that streak to 7,8,12 etc....for a flag... you just need to win 3 in a row - relatively simple for a top team.

It ensures no complacency .. ala Tigers of 2018. Hindsight says a QF loss would have been a huge benefit.

Lynch was passed fit for 2020 QF .... but Tigers didn’t play him just to be 110% sure he got through entire finals series .....and happy if we lost that Edwards, Houli, Astbury, Prestia got another weeks match fitness. We weren’t trying to lose by any stretch ... but knew we were probably not much worse off with a loss than a win, and so it proved.

You learn more from a loss than a win ... so a return match against same opponent is traditionally reversed.

And so on .....

So if a QF loss in many instances actually helps, it’s hard to argue it as a negative.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
8,426
5,901
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I know it appears to you a waste of time. It probably is. But I love knowing how people think about sports I bet on. 😁

If that is what you were referring to...
All time is wasted, it's just how you spend to choose it.

I'm confident that you are aware that your not going change opinion, even if for example we found out that Geelong using PED that PJAYS or Fadge will not change their minds.

You say you want to know for betting purposes what people think but you already only that regardless of what happens some people think their club/choice is the best no matter what. So the information you gain now will not help with betting, there is no new information been brought to you.
 

Final Siren

Mr Squiggle
Aug 18, 2009
4,152
16,987
AFL Club
Richmond
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Geelong had a dominant year in 2011.

Collingwood had a dominant H&A season before being shown up in finals by a greater team.

Geelong's 2011 year was the 2nd most dominant year of the AFL era. (You could make an argument for Carlton 1995 or Geelong 2007 but I'd rate Geelong 2011 ahead based on consistent finals performances).

There is absolutely nothing complicated, convoluted, or unclear about this. Nothing at all.
It leans on a definition of "dominant" that only exists in your head, and by which it's possible for multiple teams to dominate a home and away season, but only one can dominate a full season. You don't see anything convoluted about that?

Again, I have no problem with your varying points about how good various teams were, just the part where you package them all up into a conclusion like, "And so, I have objectively shown that Geelong's 2011 year was the 2nd most dominant year ever," when what you mean by "dominant" is not a common understanding.

Personally, I would rate Geelong 2007 as far more dominant than Geelong 2011, because the earlier Cats really did have no challengers.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad