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

[Meteoric Rise]

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

To be clear on this, more Premiers win QF’s than lose them.

But for those who lose a QF and advance to the GF, more win the GF than lose.

As I reason when I back into yet another car in a supermarket carpark, if I have the insurance there, I may as well use it from time to time.

I do think in 2020 in a shortened season with a pre-finals bye, shortened games a week apart, and players who needed game time, and wanting Lynch to be 100% right, that Richmond were barely bothered by their QF loss in 2020. You can see how it may have worked in their interests.

Hawks in 2015 I am less sure about. The other earlier ones I have no real idea about Brisbane in 2003, but I think the Swans-Eagles QF/GF reversals in 2005-6 were just genuine results.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.

I suppose I look at it slightly differently Roby. I would like to think I am not debating so much to change other people’s views as to change, or sharpen, my own. If I do something along the way to help the likes of PJays and Fadge view things differently, then I just see that as "collateral repair."

 

[PJays]

It leans on a definition of "dominant" that only exists in your head

Let’s have a thought experiment.

Minor premier, 17-5, 125%
2nd- 15-7, 115%
3rd 15-7, 111%
4th 14-8, 114%

Was the minor premier “dominant” because they were at least 2 games and 10% ahead of everyone else?

No! They still lost 5 games and still only had a percentage of 125. They weren’t consistently better than their competition, week in and week out.

Geelong weren’t ranked #1 during the season but it really doesn’t even matter in the AFL anyway. 2nd is the exact equivalent to 1st as far as finals qualification. And Geelong’s top 2 qualification was never in doubt during that year. What’s more Geelong had the measure of Collingwood in both H&A and finals. When you get to finals, it’s your main competitors that matter.

If Geelong had finished 2nd and gone 1-2 against their main competitor (or say 0-2 and avoided them in the GF cos they unexpectedly lost a prelim), then yeah, you might have an argument that it wasn’t such a “dominant” year.

But they were 6-0 vs their main two competitors. Lost only 3 games and never beaten by more than 13 points all year. Won all finals convincingly. Dominance, pure and simple.

 

[PJays]

Every year 2 teams win a Qualifying Final and 2 teams lose a Qualifying Final.

More often than not, one of the winners goes on to win the flag.

If you lose a QF you reduce your chances of winning the flag.

Looking back retrospectively and noting that some teams managed to lose a QF and then win the flag, does not change this.

One poster is claiming QF’s are irrelevant. He notes that of Grand Final teams, it doesn't seem to be relevant which of them lost a QF. In fact statistically it may be better to have lost a QF.

In other news, finishing outside top 6 is irrelevant.

The Bulldogs won the flag from 7th. Out of all Grand Final teams in the competition's entire history who finished outside the top 6, they had a 100% strike rate of winning the flag. Therefore finishing 7th is irrelevant!

 

[Final Siren]

Let’s have a thought experiment.

Minor premier, 17-5, 125%
2nd- 15-7, 115%
3rd 15-7, 111%
4th 14-8, 114%

Was the minor premier “dominant” because they were at least 2 games and 10% ahead of everyone else?

No! They still lost 5 games and still only had a percentage of 125. They weren’t consistently better than their competition, week in and week out.

Geelong weren’t ranked #1 during the season but it really doesn’t even matter in the AFL anyway. 2nd is the exact equivalent to 1st as far as finals qualification. And Geelong’s top 2 qualification was never in doubt during that year. What’s more Geelong had the measure of Collingwood in both H&A and finals. When you get to finals, it’s your main competitors that matter.

If Geelong had finished 2nd and gone 1-2 against their main competitor (or say 0-2 and avoided them in the GF cos they unexpectedly lost a prelim), then yeah, you might have an argument that it wasn’t such a “dominant” year.

But they were 6-0 vs their main two competitors. Lost only 3 games and never beaten by more than 13 points all year. Won all finals convincingly. Dominance, pure and simple.

You are welcome to your interpretation, but I don't think you'll find many people who believe the 2nd most dominant season of all time was one where another team were flag favourite for 90% of it.

 

[PJays]

You are welcome to your interpretation, but I don't think you'll find many people who believe the 2nd most dominant season of all time was one where another team were flag favourite for 90% of it.

Feel free to explain what are better marks of dominance than:

• 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.

And feel free to give me a list of teams who achieved all of this.

Like I said, if you think dominance is purely about being better than your main competitor then you could go with Carlton 1995 or Geelong 2007 who were 4 and 3 games respectively ahead of 2nd spot on the ladder. That's a very reasonable view.

But, both those teams were seriously challenged in a final- and by the 6th and 8th ranked teams, no less.

So in terms of consistent performances, and consistently showing they were better than every other team they played against especially in finals when it mattered most, Geelong takes the chocolates for mine.

And taking this back to the context of this thread, we're sitting here discussing which of Geelong's 2 greatest seasons were more "dominant". Clearly they were two of the "greatest" seasons of the AFL era. No one could possibly disagree with that.

None of the seasons by Hawthorn, Richmond or Brisbane compare with Geelong's 2007 or 2011 seasons. Except maybe you could raise an argument for Hawthorn 2008, since they beat such a great side in the GF and had such a great finals series (Although I don't include that in Hawthorn's dynasty. But if it's included, it's Hawthorn's greatest individual season).

 

[Fadge]

Every year 2 teams win a Qualifying Final and 2 teams lose a Qualifying Final.

More often than not, one of the winners goes on to win the flag.

If you lose a QF you reduce your chances of winning the flag.

Looking back retrospectively and noting that some teams managed to lose a QF and then win the flag, does not change this.

One poster is claiming QF’s are irrelevant. He notes that of Grand Final teams, it doesn't seem to be relevant which of them lost a QF. In fact statistically it may be better to have lost a QF.

In other news, finishing outside top 6 is irrelevant.

The Bulldogs won the flag from 7th. Out of all Grand Final teams in the competition's entire history who finished outside the top 6, they had a 100% strike rate of winning the flag. Therefore finishing 7th is irrelevant!

Since 2000 (for the benefit of Meteoric Rise, this includes 2000), here are the records of the losing Qualifying Finalists:
8 teams went out in Straight Sets;
26 teams won their Semi-Final, but lost the Preliminary Final;
3 teams lost the Grand Final;
5 teams won the Premiership.

15 winning Qualifying Finalists have progressed to win the Premiership.

For the mathematically challenged, based on the past 21 years, a team is 3 times more likely to win the Premiership if they win their Qualifying Final, than they are if they lose it.

But nah, Qualifying Final results are irrelevant...

 

[PJays]

Since 2000 (for the benefit of Meteoric Rise, this includes 2000), here are the records of the losing Qualifying Finalists:
8 teams went out in Straight Sets;
26 teams won their Semi-Final, but lost the Preliminary Final;
3 teams lost the Grand Final;
5 teams won the Premiership.

15 winning Qualifying Finalists have progressed to win the Premiership.

For the mathematically challenged, based on the past 21 years, a team is 3 times more likely to win the Premiership if they win their Qualifying Final, than they are if they lose it.

But nah, Qualifying Final results are irrelevant...

But, but, but when 2 teams play in the GF and one of them lost their QF, the loser usually wins the GF!

So if we're ranking Grand Final teams, it doesn't matter if you lost your QF!

All that really matters is the preliminary final and the GF.

Therefore you're just as great if you lose a final compared to going undefeated.

Q.E.D.

 

[Pessimistic]

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").

It seems he/we define greatness in the way best benefits our own argument. that way can discredit people who dont agree based on your criteria.

Just don't act all surprised if others don't quite see it, they have their own criteria after all.

In fact one of the attributes of teams which lodged threepeats, they didn't return any single outstanding season. vice versa the teams with outstanding single seasons, rarely even BTB let alone threepeats.

Its sort of the old 'petrol tickets' argument, you save them for the crunch moments

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Since 2000 (for the benefit of Meteoric Rise, this includes 2000), here are the records of the losing Qualifying Finalists:
8 teams went out in Straight Sets;
26 teams won their Semi-Final, but lost the Preliminary Final;
3 teams lost the Grand Final;
5 teams won the Premiership.

15 winning Qualifying Finalists have progressed to win the Premiership.

For the mathematically challenged, based on the past 21 years, a team is 3 times more likely to win the Premiership if they win their Qualifying Final, than they are if they lose it.

But nah, Qualifying Final results are irrelevant...

But I didn’t say Qualifying Final results were generally irrelevant, I even take QF results into account when doing finals form.

I said if you make the Grand Final, losing a QF is irrelevant. The reason I said that….is because it is.

But you carry on.

 

[Fadge]

But I didn’t say Qualifying Final results were generally irrelevant, I even take QF results into account when doing finals form.

That's awesome, because I think it's important that you take into consideration between 33% and 50% of your available data set when doing finals form in order to predict the Grand final winner.

But that doesn't explain how in 2003, 'Brisbane easily had the best finals form leading into the Grand Final'?!?

 

[Fadge]

regardless of what happens some people think their club/choice is the best no matter what.

I have ignored most comments from this poster, but have to point out the irony of this statement in that on one side we have two posters who don't barrack for Geelong (nor have teams in the discussion) pushing the Geelong barrow, and on the other side we have Richmond and Hawthorn supporters (teams who are in the discussion) who can't (or don't want to) understand the objective facts that are presented to them and are violently protesting them.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That's awesome, because I think it's important that you take into consideration between 33% and 50% of your available data set when doing finals form in order to predict the Grand final winner.

But that doesn't explain how in 2003, 'Brisbane easily had the best finals form leading into the Grand Final'?!?

It is all in the method Fadge, you of so little faith.

I explained the method being used. When assessing a GF the the first thing we do is ignore any QF between the two teams. So the 2003 QF Briz v Pies is ignored.

From there we look for other common form lines.

The one I can find is through Port Adelaide and Sydney.

Sydney beats Port in Adelaide by 2.0. As Sydney are away interstate we will say this shows them to have played about 4 s/s better than Port.

Collingwood plays Port in Melbourne in a PF, beats Port by 4 s/s. The game is in Melbourne, so we say the Pies have played about 2 s/s better than Port. This puts Sydney about 6 s/s ahead of Port.

Brisbane plays Sydney in the PF in Sydney. Brisbane win by 14 s/s.

So by this method Brisbane go into the 2003 GF miles ahead of Collingwood on form. So it is no shock they enter the GF favourite and win easily, even on the Pies home ground. .

 

[Fadge]

It is all in the method Fadge, you of so little faith.

I explained the method being used. When assessing a GF the the first thing we do is ignore any QF between the two teams. So the 2003 QF Briz v Pies is ignored.

From there we look for other common form lines.

The one I can find is through Port Adelaide and Sydney.

Sydney beats Port in Adelaide by 2.0. As Sydney are away interstate we will say this shows them to have played about 4 s/s better than Port.

Collingwood plays Port in Melbourne in a PF, beats Port by 4 s/s. The game is in Melbourne, so we say the Pies have played about 2 s/s better than Port. This puts Sydney about 6 s/s ahead of Port.

Brisbane plays Sydney in the PF in Sydney. Brisbane win by 14 s/s.

So by this method Brisbane go into the 2003 GF miles ahead of Collingwood on form. So it is no shock they enter the GF favourite and win easily, even on the Pies home ground. .

For the record, for those of you not familiar with the 2003 Finals series:
Collingwood defeated Brisbane in the Qualifying Final by 15 points, and then defeated (top placed) Port Adelaide in the Preliminary Final by 44 points;
Brisbane were defeated by Collingwood in the Qualifying Final by 15 points, defeated 6th placed Adelaide in the Semi-Final by 42 points, and defeated (4th Placed Sydney) in the Preliminary Final by 44 points (after being 3 points ahead at 3/4 time);

So Collingwood had beaten the 1st and 3rd ranked teams to make the Grand Final, whilst Brisbane had lost to the second ranked team, and beaten the 6th and 4th ranked team to make the Grand Final.

But Brisbane easily had the best form leading into the Grand Final.

You surely are just taking the p1ss...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

For the record, for those of you not familiar with the 2003 Finals series:
Collingwood defeated Brisbane in the Qualifying Final by 15 points, and then defeated (top placed) Port Adelaide in the Preliminary Final by 44 points;
Brisbane were defeated by Collingwood in the Qualifying Final by 15 points, defeated 6th placed Adelaide in the Semi-Final by 42 points, and defeated (4th Placed Sydney) in the Preliminary Final by 44 points (after being 3 points ahead at 3/4 time);

So Collingwood had beaten the 1st and 3rd ranked teams to make the Grand Final, whilst Brisbane had lost to the second ranked team, and beaten the 6th and 4th ranked team to make the Grand Final.

But Brisbane easily had the best form leading into the Grand Final.

You surely are just taking the p1ss...

The method is explained. You are criticising it for being correct in this instance.

How about you come up with a method that predicts GF winners from home and away or finals results Fadge…..

 

[Fadge]

The method is explained. You are criticising it for being correct in this instance.

How about you come up with a method that predicts GF winners from home and away or finals results Fadge…..

I'm not criticising it for being correct, I'm criticising it for being completely illogical.

Any wonder you and Roby are kindred spirits. If you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the Power rankings threads from a few years back, do yourself a favour...

 

[Pessimistic]

I have ignored most comments from this poster, but have to point out the irony of this statement in that on one side we have two posters who don't barrack for Geelong (nor have teams in the discussion) pushing the Geelong barrow, and on the other side we have Richmond and Hawthorn supporters (teams who are in the discussion) who can't (or don't want to) understand the objective facts that are presented to them and are violently protesting them.

Violently protesting? For a start I’m saying of the four, brisbane is probably the best. So where’s the home bias?
And that none are clearly (the word used) ahead of any of the others. They are teams which have won 3 premierships in a short space of time.

 

[queensberryrules]

Pies are still recovering from WW2, like England. But we are mentally secure, so no prob.

Does insecurity = premierships? If so, gimme some.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Feel free to explain what are better marks of dominance than:



And feel free to give me a list of teams who achieved all of this.

Like I said, if you think dominance is purely about being better than your main competitor then you could go with Carlton 1995 or Geelong 2007 who were 4 and 3 games respectively ahead of 2nd spot on the ladder. That's a very reasonable view.

But, both those teams were seriously challenged in a final- and by the 6th and 8th ranked teams, no less.

So in terms of consistent performances, and consistently showing they were better than every other team they played against especially in finals when it mattered most, Geelong takes the chocolates for mine.

And taking this back to the context of this thread, we're sitting here discussing which of Geelong's 2 greatest seasons were more "dominant". Clearly they were two of the "greatest" seasons of the AFL era. No one could possibly disagree with that.

None of the seasons by Hawthorn, Richmond or Brisbane compare with Geelong's 2007 or 2011 seasons. Except maybe you could raise an argument for Hawthorn 2008, since they beat such a great side in the GF and had such a great finals series (Although I don't include that in Hawthorn's dynasty. But if it's included, it's Hawthorn's greatest individual season).

I’d remove 2007 from this assessment of all-time great teams. Port, injury ravaged Eagles and 14-8 Kangas were very low quality top-4 opposition. Geelong were miles ahead of the rest, but you’d be brave to suggest none of Brisbane, Hawks or Tigers would not have had similarly dominant seasons against that collection of Premiership contenders.

Kangas would be without question the worst 4th placed team in history:

They were 1-4 v top-4 teams. 3-7 v top-8 teams (1-6 and 4-9 inc finals) Lost QF final by 106 and prelim by 87. So them finishing 4th shows how weak everyone else was.

And Cats beat 6th placed, 13-9 100% Pies coming off a final in Perth by 5-points in prelim - hardly the stuff of ‘best ever’.

So yes the Cats won a couple of finals by huge margins, but the opposition was very, very poor.

I’ve yet to see anything dispute 2007 as the weakest in the AFL era, so you can’t put a flag achieved in 2007 on any great pedestal.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Final Siren]

I’d remove 2007 from this assessment of all-time great teams. Port, injury ravaged Eagles and 14-8 Kangas were very low quality top-4 opposition. Geelong were miles ahead of the rest, but you’d be brave to suggest none of Brisbane, Hawks or Tigers would not have had similarly dominant seasons against that collection of Premiership contenders.

Kangas would be without question the worst 4th placed team in history:

They were 1-4 v top-4 teams. 3-7 v top-8 teams (1-6 and 4-9 inc finals) Lost QF final by 106 and prelim by 87. So them finishing 4th shows how weak everyone else was.

And Cats beat 6th placed, 13-9 100% Pies coming off a final in Perth by 5-points in prelim - hardly the stuff of ‘best ever’.

So yes the Cats won a couple of finals by huge margins, but the opposition was very, very poor.

I’ve yet to see anything dispute 2007 as the weakest in the AFL era, so you can’t put a flag achieved in 2007 on any great pedestal.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

This is a good example of the difference between "great" and "dominant."

If the competition in 2007 was weak, then Geelong may not have been that great. But they sure were dominant.

In 2011, by contrast, Geelong were great, but so were Collingwood. So they weren't dominant.

 

[PJays]

If the competition in 2007 was weak, then Geelong may not have been that great. But they sure were dominant.

In 2011, by contrast, Geelong were great, but so were Collingwood. So they weren't dominant.

This almost sounds like you think Geelong had both the most dominant season and the greatest season out of all seasons by teams in this thread

 

[Noidnadroj]

This almost sounds like you think Geelong had both the most dominant season and the greatest season out of all seasons by teams in this thread

It’s a very good distinction. The Pies were dominant from inception to 1936, winning 11 flags and coming runners up 9 times by 1936. And a 4-peat from 1927-1930. But I don’t think it’s necessarily confirmation they were a ‘great’ team albeit a dominant one. Mainly because any regular competition was thin on the ground with a completely uneven playing field.

And a quirky and ridiculous ‘lucky loser’ finals system did them no harm in 1929 and 1930.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Fadge]

It’s a very good distinction. The Pies were dominant from inception to 1936, winning 11 flags and coming runners up 9 times by 1936. And a 4-peat from 1927-1930. But I don’t think it’s necessarily confirmation they were a ‘great’ team albeit a dominant one. Mainly because any regular competition was thin on the ground with a completely uneven playing field.

And a quirky and ridiculous ‘lucky loser’ finals system did them no harm in 1929 and 1930.

Hope the salt tastes delicious.

The 'lucky loser' is not dissimilar to the Qualifying Final - you can only play by the rules of the day. Maybe Collingwood tanked in the first final, made their opposition leave everything on the park, knowing they would just go 'bang' in the return match up?

 

[Final Siren]

This almost sounds like you think Geelong had both the most dominant season and the greatest season out of all seasons by teams in this thread

Yes, this is correct! I've said this before in this thread. You just keep forgetting while claiming all Richmond supporters are biased, while anything your buddy Fadge says must be right.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm not criticising it for being correct, I'm criticising it for being completely illogical.

Any wonder you and Roby are kindred spirits. If you haven't yet familiarised yourself with the Power rankings threads from a few years back, do yourself a favour...

More illogical than your system of rating teams roughly according to how well they perform in the home and away season….that predicts Grand Final winners at a worse rate than flipping a coin?

No thanks, I’ll stick to things that work, even if you cannot understand why it works.

Your pronouncements in your post #2,989 displays yet again that you over-rate home and away performance, and under-rate finals performance when it comes to working out what constitutes a strong Grand Finalist.

To give you a clue that might help….when assessing the form of Grand Final teams, assess only the wins they have had. And if you think previous finals meetings the two teams had mean anything….

2018 Pies v Eagles confirmed earlier result
2015 Hawks v Eagles reversed earlier result
2006 Swans v Eagles reversed
2005 Swans v Eagles reversed
2003 Lions v Pies reversed

final 8 introduced

1993 Bombers v Blies reversed
1992 Eagles v Cats confirmed
1991 Hawks v Eagles confirmed

final 6 introduced

1990 Pies v Bombers confirmed
1987 Blues v Hawks confirmed
1986 Blues v Hawks reversed
1985 Bombers v Hawks confirmed
1984 Bombers v Hawks reversed
1982 Richmond v Carlton reversed
1978 Hawthorn v North confirmed
1976 Hawthorn v North confirmed
1975 Hawthorn v North reversed
1974 Richmond v North reversed
1973 Richmond v Carlton reversed
1972 Richmond v Carlton reversed

before that was the final four system.

You could go back further. There is a reason I don’t use previous meetings in the same finals series as a guide to assessing the claims of a Grand Finalist. It is because in all my time following footy it has never proven a good guide. Why? Who knows, but 12 of the 20 repeat finals matchups in GF’s since the final five system was introduced in 1972 have seen the initial result reversed. You go back further into the final four system and I am not sure it was even that different then, I have gone back as far as 1966.

When two teams meet in a GF who have previously opposed each other in the finals series, the loser of the first match has won 14 of the 24 contests. Therefore, the sensible thing to do seems to be either:

- not take the results of these matches into account, or
- better yet, use them as a reverse indicator, kerching$$$$.

So it may not seem logical to you, I am not even sure it seems logical to me, but it is a long standing and strong trend and as such should not be disregarded nor disrespected.