Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ok so now first quarters are all that count.
I'm sorry I thought when assessing dominance, the ability to actually play out a game would come into it.
Last edited:
Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers
- Thread starter Rasha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ok so now first quarters are all that count.
I'm sorry I thought when assessing dominance, the ability to actually play out a game would come into it.
Still Hawthorn
3 premierships in 4 years does not make a dynasty........... Need to add a fourth and then MAYBE.
To be better than Hawthorn or even the Lions, they have to make 4 grand finals in a row!
You said this....
Final Siren said:
Under this definition, Richmond 2018 and Port 2003 both were dominant in the home and away season. Both 2 games clear on top of the ladder.
Now, I was making the argument that Geelong were dominant all year. You said they weren't, because Geelong weren't the minor premier. That's why I brought Richmond and Port into it.
If you wanna restrict it to all year, and you’re saying that a team has to:
- Easily be the best all home and away season
- And
- Easily the best in the finals
Carlton 1995, Essendon 2000 and Geelong 2007 are only ones that immediately spring to mind.
If you’re using a definition that means there’s only one “dominant team” every 10 years or more, then maybe your definition is too restrictive!
Have I missed something? I’m not trying to misrepresent you at all……
Somewhat off-topic, but it is pretty remarkable that three of the five sides to win 20+ home and away games in the history of the VFL/AFL - Geelong in 08, Saints in 09, Pies in 2011 - didn't win the premiership. Even more incredibly, it happened 3 times in the space of 4 years.
Looking at those seasons individually, I guess they show that:
- in a competition decided in a one-off game, unexpected outcomes can happen (as opposed to league seasons in European soccer, or playoff series in American sports). 2008 falls into this category, as I think Geelong would would have have won that game 7 or 8 times out of 10, nothwithstanding that Hawthorn had a very good season
- it's a truism that AFL premierships are won by the team in the best form come the finals. As previously noted by you, PJays, and a couple of other posters, I think that 2009 and to a lesser extent, 2011, fall into this category, as the Saints and Pies weren't as dominant in the finals as they had been for most of the home and away season. Both teams had very narrow, physically taxing prelim wins, too, whereas the Cats smashed their prelim opponents both years. I find the 08 Cats harder to place on the "form at the business end of the season metric" - they had won 15 games in a row leading into the grand final, so statistically speaking were in remarkably good form. But I seem to remember thinking at the time that they looked a little off in their prelim against the Dogs, even though they won it fairly comfortably in the end - and obviously any dip in form is a relative concept for a team that had been so dominant for so long. Cats fans can probably enlighten me on whether the manner of their prelim victory (combined with Hawthorn blitzing St Kilda in the other prelim) gave them any concerns leading into the GF, or if they were super-confident given their tremendous form over the previous 18 months
- each of these three 20-win teams faced a very strong challenger that was good enough to take advantage of any slip-ups. Geelong in 2011 is - I think - statistically speaking the best team ever to finish second on the ladder, with a 19-3 win-loss record at 157 per cent. Geelong in 09 and the Hawks in 08 had pretty similar records; the Cats one won more game (18 to 17), but the Hawks had a better percentage. I suspect that if, hypothetically speaking, the 08, 09 and 11 grand finals had been won by the higher-ranked team, the Cats (x 2) and Hawks would have been regarded among the better runner-ups in the AFL era.
There’s been several references to other sports. So let’s look a qualifying heats in olympics or the group round in the World Cup.
there’s just so many examples of champions doing the bare minimum in what they see as a qualifying round, but bringing the a game in the crunch deciders.
can anyone tell me what this is?
5: ESS. 4: PTA,GEE. 3: WCE,SYD. 2: ADEL,HAW,COLL,STK. 1:RICH,NM,CARL,FRE
there’s just so many examples of champions doing the bare minimum in what they see as a qualifying round, but bringing the a game in the crunch deciders.
can anyone tell me what this is?
5: ESS. 4: PTA,GEE. 3: WCE,SYD. 2: ADEL,HAW,COLL,STK. 1:RICH,NM,CARL,FRE
Is that what I said? All that count?
You and PJays have a hard time with representing the facts of what someone said despite you claiming how good you are at facts.
Also, you still haven't responded why all the greatest teams/dynasties I mentioned in soccer and basketball ALL defended their title an no other teams who haven't done so are not considered in the same conversations.
Cats were the best team against the toughest competition. Lions won 3 because port choked every year. Hawks and Richmond both great teams, weaker competition although miles ahead of second.
You can make the argument based on your initial point that winning that much during the home and away season means that
A) you've expended too much energy
B) you've shown all your best cards
C) all the above
‘is it not a case that two teams have threepeated (among 4 grand finals straight) and another looks like it could do the same. That arguers for geelong (who clearly believe their team was easily the best, and not by a small margin) have had to find other lists of items to offset the fact that just one win in one game would have meant the arguments were equally simple and straight forward?
There’s anecdotal evidence the team thinks so too cos they embarked on a fanatical revenge winning 12 games straight against a hawks team which wasn’t poor by any description? They know how it tarnishes their rep.
Spurs won in 03-05-07.
San Antonio Spurs: The Only Underrated Dynasty in NBA History
The '50s and '60s Boston Celtics . The '80s Los Angeles Lakers . The '90s Bulls . When discussing NBA dynasties, these, along with the early 2000s Lakers and probably the early-to-mid-'80s Celtics, are the teams that come to mind...
bit.ly
melbourne Storm 'won' in 07-09-12. Any rugby league fan, notwithstanding the fact that they were later stripped of 07/09, knows they were a dynasty. They sure as hell didn't take a back seat to, say, Parramatta of the 80s who won 3 in a row.
Parramatta aren't even regarded unequivicolly as the best team of the 80s despite winning 81-82-83-86. That honour is shared with the Bulldogs. Who won 80-84-85 (yes I realise that's back to back) and 88.
No one has won back to back titles in rugby league in a unified competition since 92-93. The Roosters - my own team - did it last year. It hasn't automatically made them leapfrog other teams who had compressed periods of success but didn't win twice in a row.
You can make as many comparisons as you want. No one has yet proved that winning consecutively somehow makes a team better than one who wins 2 titles with basically the same team non-sequentially.
Hell, in AFL itself the 90s Eagles are regarded more highly than the Crows. Why? Because they were a better side.
You - you - not anyone else - just tried to claim that the dominance discussion comparing the 2013 Hawks to other teams is moot because in 2013 the Hawks averaged a 9 point lead at quarter time.
So what? Do games only go for one quarter?
In that case, why not look at smaller periods of dominance like the Cats 12-win streak to start 2009 or their 15 game streak mid-way through 2007.
‘it’s not remarkable that two teams ‘dominate’ a season. What’s touchy feels is saying there was tough opposition that year. It was a two horse race. Interpretation could easily be the general opposition was very poor resulting in more blow outs than usual. Percentage. I’m not saying it was, but it’s a feasible assumption
Spurs won in 03-05-07.
San Antonio Spurs: The Only Underrated Dynasty in NBA History
The '50s and '60s Boston Celtics . The '80s Los Angeles Lakers . The '90s Bulls . When discussing NBA dynasties, these, along with the early 2000s Lakers and probably the early-to-mid-'80s Celtics, are the teams that come to mind...
melbourne Storm 'won' in 07-09-12. Any rugby league fan, notwithstanding the fact that they were later stripped of 07/09, knows they were a dynasty. They sure as hell didn't take a back seat to, say, Parramatta of the 80s who won 3 in a row.
Parramatta aren't even regarded unequivicolly as the best team of the 80s despite winning 81-82-83-86. That honour is shared with the Bulldogs. Who won 80-84-85 (yes I realise that's back to back) and 88.
You can make as many comparisons as you want. No one has yet proved that winning consecutively somehow makes a team better than one who wins 2 titles with basically the same team non-sequentially.
Hell, in AFL itself the 90s Eagles are regarded more highly than the Crows. Why? Because they were a better side.
You - you - not anyone else - just tried to claim that the dominance discussion comparing the 2013 Hawks to other teams is moot because in 2013 the Hawks averaged a 9 point lead at quarter time.
So what? Do games only go for one quarter?
In that case, why not look at smaller periods of dominance like the Cats 12-win streak to start 2009 or their 15 game streak mid-way through 2007.
Are you suggesting that Spurs are better or equal to the great Lakers, Boston, Bulls and Golden State teams?
there was tough opposition between the two sides, between Hawthorn in third, and the Eagles in fourth who finished with a 17-5 record, as good as teams ranked higher than them in other seasons.
Of course there were weak sides. There is every year. The carcass of Adelaide this year in another year would be Melbourne, or Carlton, or Gold Coast. That's not in dispute.
Did I say that?
I think they easily have claims at being rated alongside the Golden State team.
Boston were unbeatable for over a decade. Whether consecutive or not the fact is they won 11 out of 14 championships. It's so far ahead of the next best as to be laughable.
They aren't as good as Chicago - they won 6 out of 8 and were as close to unbeatable while Jordan was there as any side you could imagine. If Chicago's success stopped with just their first three peat though, absolutely I think they'd have claims as being in the discussion at least.
The Lakers won five out of nine - though by your reckoning they hadn't achieved a thing until the last of those five - that was the only time their Showtime team went back to back.
And even Lakers fans would still probably tell you that the 80s team was better than the three in a row side of the early 2000s.
RichLeMonde
Club Legend
This. No one in their right mind would consider Adelaide a greater team than either WC or North in the 90s. WC fluffing it in 93 is actually no worse than Adelaide effectively fluffing it in 96 and 99 - Adelaide's back to back is no greater achievement. The cumulative tally of sucess is what's important, including making GFs and prelims. North's 8(?) straight prelims ahead of Adelaide's 2 is much more important than back-to-back premierships versus 2 flags in 4 years.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
of that era they are. They won 5 championships in a 15 year period. The Lakers won 5, Bulls 6 and the Warriors 3. The Spurs are recognized as one of the best, most consistent organisations in the NBA
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
This is a great point, when I think of great teams in the 90s the first couple that spring to mind are West Coast and North.
3 flags is 3 flags. All these great teams won 3.
Backing up a flag with another one, and another one is impressive.
But so is beating one of the most dominant home and away teams in history, after you lost the best player in the comp (Ablett) and everybody said your era was over.
Backing up a flag with another one, and another one is impressive.
But so is beating one of the most dominant home and away teams in history, after you lost the best player in the comp (Ablett) and everybody said your era was over.
Astute observation.
I remember this being on my mind in 2010. I went to the MCG and watched Collingwood beat St Kilda easily, and I thought “oh no! This is it….we blew our chance last year. Collingwood’s not getting beaten this year!”.
In the end, we got closer in 2010 than we did in 2009.
Collingwood were easily the best team that year, but would’ve lost the grand final if the ball had bounced the right way for Milney (and probably would’ve lost if there had been extra time, like there is now). But if that game had been played 10 times, Collingwood win 7 or 8.
I’m a big basketball fan, so I always compare the sports. In footy, it strikes me that we make huge statements based on small sample sizes.
One example “Nick Riewoldt wasn’t a finals player”. Really, based on what? His 3 grand finals? 3 games? What about the 2009 qualifying final and prelim final, where St Kilda kicked 21 goals and their opponents kicked 14? Riewoldt kicked 9! He kicked one quarter of the total goals across two finals matches against top 4 teams. 5 goals less than the entire opposing teams across two matches! And finished the prelim with the last two goals- he was the matchwinner. But oh no, Riewoldt can’t play finals!
Small sample sizes. I think it means luck or chance plays a greater role.
It also means you really gotta make those few opportunities count. Something my team sadly hasn’t done!
This is one of my biggest bugbears. It happens on a weekly basis. Someone has a quiet game - oh he's crap.
It's getting a huge run in the Dangerfield vs Martin thread at the moment. You'd swear blind that every final Dangerfield has played has been a 0 goal, 5 touch effort with 9 free kicks against. The fact is he's played one grand final, played ok but not brilliant, and 3-4 other finals he's been fairly average so the deduction is made that he shits his pants in any game of any importance.
30 second run down of teams other than Geelong and Collingwood in 2011
Hawthorn: Buddy, Hodge, Mitchell, Rioli, Roughhead, Burgoyne, Gibson, etc etc. 19-1 against teams not named Geelong or Collingwood.
West Coast: 17-5 and lost one game at Subiaco. Go read the names in this team. Star studded.
St Kilda: Won 11 of 15 in home stretch, only losses to Collingwood, Geelong and Sydney. Had Riewoldt, Milne, Goddard, Montagna, Fisher, Dempster, Dal Santo (Hayes was injured). At the end of a stretch where they made finals 7 years out of 8 since 2004, 5 prelims, 3 grand finals.
Sydney: Made finals every year 2003-2011 except 2009. Won premiership next year in 2012.
Carlton: Ratten's Blues. Another perennial finals team whose season ended 3 times by tiny margins in interstate finals. 2011 was their best year, almost knocking off WC in the semi despite injuries.
Summary: Geelong and Collingwood were dominant because they were so incredibly good, not because the competition was weak.
And, Geelong still had to beat a better grand final opponent than Hawthorn or Brisbane or Richmond ever did. That still counts for something, regardless of the rest of the teams.
- Banned
- #947
thats first place after the H&A season right
Key word you used is organisations, not team.
I can't recall any world cup qualifying round football team just doing 'the bare minimum.' One loss or loss of points can totally re-arrange where you finish. Yes when a game is won 4-0 with 15 minutes to play they will take some of their stars off but they don't do the bare minimum.
Heat runners or swimmers are a little different, finishing 1-4 doesn't ostensibly make any difference aside from which lane you're swimming in so there is a lot less on the line, and it isn't going to effect your opposition in the finals either. Ie. Finishing 2nd in a heat doesn't give you an easier path to the final than finishing 3rd in a heat.
Where you finish in a football season has big implications. And yes there will be times when teams put the cue in the rack after a win is assured, but there aren't a lot of times barring the closing rounds of a season where you can't move up or down the ladder where a side will take to the field and not try to win.
Oh. Please. Just goes to show your bias as you are now comparing Danger to Martin. You've had Tiger friends helping you in this thread, I doubt they'll come to your aid in this one, in fact, I don't think anyone will.
- Status
