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

[Barry_Badrinath]

Give it up Cats fans. 4 is a bigger number than 3.

You won 3/5. Hawks won 4/8. The only reason you’re not remembered as the greatest team of all time is because the Cats, when they were at the absolute peak of their powers, s**t the bed against a weaker version of the dynasty Hawks.

And yes, the Hawks going 19-3 in 2013 and then 17-5 in 2014 despite being crueled by injuries are dominant seasons and just as impressive as what Geelong did.

 

[Gibbke]

The 2014 GF was undoubtedly Hawthorn's finest moment. Whilst they were brilliant, it's also true very few Sydney players turned up. A disappointment.

Same result as 2015 and 2017, WC and Adelaide, but unlike those two who'd played their last game of the season in the PF, Sydney did start the game like they meant it. They were belted out of the match by the end of the first quarter...

Probably more accurate to say too that the 2014 GF was the crown on top of undoubtedly Hawthorn's finest season...there were other GF's where the opponent was on fire or we beat them by more, but none came on the end of a season as difficult and as resultantly well managed as 2014 was. You could make a movie of that season and people would think it was scripted...

 

[Pessimistic]

Great question, another angle on the longevity argument I've made for Geelong.

If it counts against Geelong that they failed to back up in 08 and 10, why doesn't it count against Hawthorn that they took so long to become good enough to win a flag?

(From elimination final in 2010 to flag in 2013).

Geelong went from zero to hero in one season, allowing them to stay up long enough to still be winning flags in 2011. Hawthorn took longer, and dropped off faster. That doesn't make Hawthorn greater. Both situations provide unique challenges.

Your question is similar to the thought experiment I did quite a few pages ago now. If Hawthorn had won the tight 2011 prelim- and gone on to beat Geelong in 2011- and then lost the tight 2014 prelim instead, would Hawthorn's team be any less impressive?

If they won 2011 instead of 2014, arguably they'd be greater because they beat two teams who were 39-5, 163% (Coll and Gee) instead of 2 teams who were 31-13 and 136% (Port and Syd).

I don't understand why beating two lesser teams makes Hawthorn greater, simply because they won a flag the year before in 2013. That's what people who make the "3 peat is greater" argument are essentially saying.

I guess the questions inevitably revolve around why wasnt a geelong 2008 victory inevitable? even at 3/4 time it was just 17 points defecit and had kicked the last two goals. Although happy, Im pretty sure I didnt think the hawks ad it in the bag (although the histroy of teams leading at 3/4 time is pretty significant.

It certainly would be absolute proof of superiority in this discussion. and on the 'five years' thing - Richmond have one year to go? a grand final loss would match the other three. A win would be a threepeat and 4 from 5 in one go. They still wouldnt have the stack of AAs that Geelong have nor the collection of 3-4 premiership players the Hawks or Lions have.

But back to 2008. was there hubris or complacency? they had had some intersting moment in the prelim at least.

Perhaps the hawks complacency came in 2012 and that shock lasted them for as long as they were able. many people think that. Adding Lake (despite losing Buddy) filled a hole and made them a much more complete team.

No doubt there was a Geelong resolve which came from 2008 too - the 12 wins in a row over Hawthorn (Kennett Curse etc this streak is certainly relevant to theis conversation) and a team which became renoun for reversing adverse scorelines after 3/4 time - the 17 pt defecit would have been seen as 'nothing' to the team which emerged.

So Brisbane were 2000-2004 (and I believe the 1998 spoon has to be discussed here too) then it was 2 years to Geelong 2009-2011, 0 year to Hawthorn 2012-15, then 1 year to Richmond 2017-(21?)
I still see the progression from "Names with basic systems" of Brisbane progressively to "not so many names but advanced systems" of Richmond

In the between times, Sydney, Eagles, Collingwood (and to a lesser extent StKilda Port, Adelaide) keeping thereabouts and taking some flags

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Same result as 2015 and 2017, WC and Adelaide, but unlike those two who'd played their last game of the season in the PF, Sydney did start the game like they meant it. They were belted out of the match by the end of the first quarter...

The Crows did the same in 2017 though. They were up 27-15 and lead at quarter time before Richmond ground them into the dirt in the 2nd.

 

[PJays]

Give it up Cats fans. 4 is a bigger number than 3.

Oh I thought this argument had been left behind many pages ago

Hawthorn had 6 players who played through from 08 to 15.

That's not the work of a "team".

You can argue Hawthorn was a better club over whatever time period you choose, but this thread from the OP and the dates provided, is meant to be about dynasties of teams, not clubs.

My argument has only ever been that Geelong 07-11>Bris 00-04 and Haw 11-15 and Rich

You could possibly add in 99 or 16 but makes no real difference to my arguments

Edit- also I'm no Cats fan. One of the few neutrals posting regularly here too!

 

[Roby]

Give it up Cats fans. 4 is a bigger number than 3.

You won 3/5. Hawks won 4/8. The only reason you’re not remembered as the greatest team of all time is because the Cats, when they were at the absolute peak of their powers, sh*t the bed against a weaker version of the dynasty Hawks.

And yes, the Hawks going 19-3 in 2013 and then 17-5 in 2014 despite being crueled by injuries are dominant seasons and just as impressive as what Geelong did.

If not more impressive. I would say Clarko is really the dynasty guy

 

[Pessimistic]

And up till the shock of the 2008, Hawks were a bit of a nemesis for Geelong. It was 2006 and after Geelongs second big win of the season, Lions and Kangaroos. Laidley declared them the team to beat (and they had been fancied like st kilda since about 2004)
Next week a raw hawks team comes down to KP and wins by 50+ (apparently there'd been a big geelong party it turns out) 2006 turned out to be a sul searching exercise, and the cats identified that they had been woefully underperforming for their talent.
Hawks had a similar thing in 2009.

I'm sure this isn't news to the obviously knowlegable posters in here

 

[Roby]

Oh I thought this argument had been left behind many pages ago

Nope. We still think Hawthorn is clearly better, having beat also over a dozen premiership players of its 2011 best Geelong team ever in a prelim in 2013.

 

[BuddyHawk]

Great post.

A few interesting stats you threw in there. I wasn't aware Hawthorn had a 40-5 stretch. Not quite Geelong's 55-3 or Collingwood's 33-2-2, but very impressive nonetheless. That would be better than any stretch by Richmond or Brisbane. And by a fair margin.

Your comments about Sydney are fair. They were a quality adversary. Like you say, it's a shame they weren't quite fit and firing at finals time in 2013 and 2015, otherwise it could've been another West Coast vs Sydney level rivalry.

The 2014 GF was undoubtedly Hawthorn's finest moment. Whilst they were brilliant, it's also true very few Sydney players turned up. A disappointment.

If that game was played 10 times, I would've expected 8 of them to be ripping contests, with Sydney probably winning 5. Then one blow-out either way. That we got a Hawthorn blow-out, is huge. It's the one game I can't find a way to criticise- not a close prelim, not a weak opponent, just a smashing victory over a top-tier combatant in the last game of the season.

Despite my misgivings about Fremantle, winning a prelim on the road is special. However, I recall always thinking Hawthorn would win that game. Firstly because I always saw Freo as a very good team but not quite premiership material (unlike 2014 Sydney). After casting my eyes over the ladder I recall another reason- Hawthorn had a 40% advantage over Fremantle despite winning one less game. It's one of the most bizarre ladders in history.

It may not be obvious, but I have great respect for this Hawthorn group. Their kicking skills were superb, and they made teams pay by converting opportunities with sublime execution. One of my enduring footy memories is heading down to my dingy local pub in 2014 (before it was renovated!), and watching St Kilda get annihilated by 130 points. That was a turning point- after a surprisingly competitive start to the season, the Hawthorn loss began a period of utter ineptitude for St Kilda's young side. Our confidence was ruined.

Whilst I rate Hawthorn 4th of 4 dynasties here, they were physically tough, resilient enough to stand up in countless big moments, and by 2015 had developed that type of aura Brisbane had. The "uh-oh, its finals time, here's Hawthorn" factor. The "foregone conclusion" dread at the back of opposing fans minds.

I'll admit Geelong never quite developed that factor after the 2008 loss, despite being a more brilliant team who triumphed in some of the greatest victories in the record books. That aura's a feeling cultivated through watching successive victories. But, that's a feeling for the fans. It doesn't worry the players- not the greatest ones anyway. Every dynasty ends eventually. That feeling is ultimately a facade and it eventually gets proven such every time, when someone beats the pre-eminent heroes. Which is why we can look back and consider each group of 3 flags in totality as achievements of different groups of players, and use a range of measures for comparison. Measures that show Geelong a clear number one.

I appreciate your contributions though, insightful and thoughtful analysis and a pleasure to read. Cheers

Thanks PJays - your own contributions have been consistently top-notch.

I had forgotten the Cats reeled off 13 straight at the start of 09, coming off the grand final loss. 55 wins in 58 games is surely never going to be bested.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

In terms of most injury ravaged of the 13 premiership seasons, Hawks 2014 and Richmond 2019 & 2020 are the stand outs.

Hawks lost a huge number of players and their coach in 2014 but managed to continually adjust and achieve a 17-5 record.

In 2019 Richmond lost a crazy amount of top end talent early in the season but managed to stay in touch with the top 8 until they started to get their players back later in the year. Once they go going they finished on a 12 game win streak.

2020 was a similar deal, but spread throughout the season more. A global pandemic interrupting the season didn’t help either.

Geelong had a better W/L record throughout the years, but they never had to face the same adversity these teams did. I’d say 17-5 and 16-6 with a truckload of injuries is just as impressive as winning 18-19 with a pretty consistent list to choose from.

 

[JackOutback]

In terms of most injury ravaged of the 13 premiership seasons, Hawks 2014 and Richmond 2019 & 2020 are the stand outs.

Hawks lost a huge number of players and their coach in 2014 but managed to continually adjust and achieve a 17-5 record.

In 2019 Richmond lost a crazy amount of top end talent early in the season but managed to stay in touch with the top 8 until they started to get their players back later in the year. Once they go going they finished on a 12 game win streak.

2020 was a similar deal, but spread throughout the season more. A global pandemic interrupting the season didn’t help either.

Geelong had a better W/L record throughout the years, but they never had to face the same adversity these teams did. I’d say 17-5 and 16-6 with a truckload of injuries is just as impressive as winning 18-19 with a pretty consistent list to choose from.

Every club thinks they had the worst injury run, often because they overrate their mid tier players. I mean, West Coast won in 2018 without Nic Nat, Gaff* and Shepherd, our top three in this year’s B&F. Didn’t have the luxury of getting them back for the grand final.

 

[BuddyHawk]

Every club thinks they had the worst injury run, often because they overrate their mid tier players. I mean, West Coast won in 2018 without Nic Nat, Gaff* and Shepherd, our top three in this year’s B&F. Didn’t have the luxury of getting them back for the grand final.

Yep - the Eagles 2018 flag was super-impressive. They showed great resilience in the GF, too, after being blown away early by a Collingwood team riding high after their shock prelim win.

 

[Here we go dogs]

Obviously all great, but Geelong and Brisbane are the close to equal for mine

Geelong were close to unbeatable 2007-2009.

Brisbane were untouchable in finals and they seemed to prime themselves for the pointy end of the season.

 

[BuddyHawk]

Great question, another angle on the longevity argument I've made for Geelong.

If it counts against Geelong that they failed to back up in 08 and 10, why doesn't it count against Hawthorn that they took so long to become good enough to win a flag?

(From elimination final in 2010 to flag in 2013).

Geelong went from zero to hero in one season, allowing them to stay up long enough to still be winning flags in 2011. Hawthorn took longer, and dropped off faster. That doesn't make Hawthorn greater. Both situations provide unique challenges.

Your question is similar to the thought experiment I did quite a few pages ago now. If Hawthorn had won the tight 2011 prelim- and gone on to beat Geelong in 2011- and then lost the tight 2014 prelim instead, would Hawthorn's team be any less impressive?

If they won 2011 instead of 2014, arguably they'd be greater because they beat two teams who were 39-5, 163% (Coll and Gee) instead of 2 teams who were 31-13 and 136% (Port and Syd).

I don't understand why beating two lesser teams makes Hawthorn greater, simply because they won a flag the year before in 2013. That's what people who make the "3 peat is greater" argument are essentially saying.

Summary:[/]
1.[/] Essentially Hawthorn and Geelong both had opportunities to beat certain teams over a 5 year period as their playing group peaked. Both Hawthorn and Geelong emerged from their 5 year era with 3 flags each.

2. Geelong faced the unique challenge of winning one early then staying up, and successfully returned to the top against all odds. Hawthorn took longer to finally win one, but when they did they had to back up, and did, successfully winning 3 flags and matching Geelong before their era was done.

3.But surely the tie breaker questions are: Who did they beat? And how easily did they win?

Geelong played opponents that are universally recognised as collectively tougher. And they did it more easily.

Tie breaker to Geelong. Geelong wins.

edit: Oops, not sure what's going on with all the bold! Will try to fix later when I'm on a computer.

It's a good hypothetical you pose, with the Hawks winning '11 but falling short in '14. So it would have meant that:

- 2011 - won the 2011 flag unexpectedly, similarly to 2008
- 2012 - lost a close GF against the Swans
- 2013 - won a tight-ish GF against Freo
- 2014 - lost a close prelim against Port
- 2015 - won the GF easily against WCE

My thoughts are that while the 2011 premiership would have assumed legendary status for Hawks' fan - knocking off two powerhouse teams in Collingwood and Geelong in the finals - the sequence isn't quite as impressive as what actually occurred. It would have meant that our two attempts at back-to-back (leaving aside 2016) would have ended us with us losing two knock-out finals we were favoured to win - against the Swans as minor premier, and against a Port side we finished 3 games ahead of in the h&a season. As a fan and a footy observer, I feel that would have left me feeling we'd under-achieved a touch, even if the net result - 3 flags - was the same.

As it transpired, the loss to the Swans in '12 - painful as it was at the time - helped the side build huge amounts of resolve, when there was a feeling across 11-12 that they lacked a bit of composure and resilience in close games (eg pretty much every time we played Geelong, the '11 prelim against the Pies and of course the '12 GF). That resolve definitely helped us in the nail-biting 2013 and 14 prelims.

This probably all sounds like I'm splitting hairs, tbh - but when we're comparing great teams across different eras it's kind of hard not to.

 

[PJays]

I’ve barely commented on Richmond in this thread, because I’ve spent most of my time explaining why I consider Geelong easily the greatest of the 4.

Richmond will best be discussed in 5 years, once they’ve stopped winning flags.

2 points on Richmond that seem apparent:


1. They've been the most consistent finals team of the 4 dynasties.

My knock on Richmond has been the quality of their opponents. However you can only beat whoever's in front of you and they've done a mighty fine job of that.

Their finals record 2017-20 is 10-2 with 8 wins by over 5 goals.

Each dynasty played 6 or 7 sudden death finals across their 3 flag seasons. Richmond, Hawthorn and Brisbane played 3 GFs, 3 prelims and 1 semi final each. Geelong only played 6, because they never lost a qualifying final and had to play a semi final.

Brisbane had 2 close calls- a GF and a prelim. Geelong likewise. Hawthorn had 2 tight prelims.

Richmond only had 1 close call- 2020 prelim vs Port.

Yes they were losing in the 2019 prelim, but the result wasn't in doubt in the last few minutes. Unlike all these other games.

So only once have they survived by a whisker. Each other dynasty came perilously close to losing on 2 occasions.


2. I think their 2020 flag is their greatest achievement.

Yes, 17 games and short quarters.

But Richmond had unique challenges- with the top 2 teams staying home all year, Richmond was travelling.

Anyone who has kids or partners will appreciate that those players faced a tough decision. Either A. Don’t see your kids for months (or in some cases, wives and girlfriends) or B. Uproot your family from their entire existence.

When Australia goes to England and wins The Ashes, part of the reason it’s special is because they’re travelling for months. Richmond’s 2020 flag was a little like winning the Ashes, compared to their previous flags won at home.

A super effort by Richmond. And a super effort by Geelong to get within a quarter too. Both won away prelims after being in hubs for 3 months.

 

[Roby]

I’ve barely commented on Richmond in this thread, because I’ve spent most of my time explaining why I consider Geelong easily the greatest of the 4.

The fact you start with this assertion, not even that Geelong is the best, but EASILY the best, I'm surprised how people are buying into your long winded waffles and misguided stats.

How I rank the dynasties (if you can even call it that for Geelong, more like an era or "nostalgic aura")

Out of 10:

First - Hawthorn 8/10

Second - Richmond 6/10 (pending)

Third - Brisbane 5.5/10

Geelong - 2/10

 

[PJays]

As a fan and a footy observer, I feel that would have left me feeling we'd under-achieved a touch, even if the net result - 3 flags - was the same.

I totally agree. Hawthorn losing the 14 prelim would've been one of the famous finals upsets. Like Geelong 08, Richmond 18 and Essendon 99.

But the question isn't "Would there have been a feeling of underachievement?", the question is why that scenario would make Hawthorn inferior. Why would beating two of the statistically greatest teams of all time, be inferior?

I know your answer is because wouldn't ever go back to back. I guess I just don't see backing up in quite the same impressive light as you do.

Each season is it's own new entity. I see both Hawthorn and Geelong as teams that had spectacular successes, and also near-miss seasons. I reckon overall results are more important than which order those results were achieved in.

 

[Pessimistic]

I’ve barely commented on Richmond in this thread, because I’ve spent most of my time explaining why I consider Geelong easily the greatest of the 4.

Richmond will best be discussed in 5 years, once they’ve stopped winning flags.

2 points on Richmond that seem apparent:


1. They've been the most consistent finals team of the 4 dynasties.

My knock on Richmond has been the quality of their opponents. However you can only beat whoever's in front of you and they've done a mighty fine job of that.

Their finals record 2017-20 is 10-2 with 8 wins by over 5 goals.

Each dynasty played 6 or 7 sudden death finals across their 3 flag seasons. Richmond, Hawthorn and Brisbane played 3 GFs, 3 prelims and 1 semi final each. Geelong only played 6, because they never lost a qualifying final and had to play a semi final.

Brisbane had 2 close calls- a GF and a prelim. Geelong likewise. Hawthorn had 2 tight prelims.

Richmond only had 1 close call- 2020 prelim vs Port.

Yes they were losing in the 2019 prelim, but the result wasn't in doubt in the last few minutes. Unlike all these other games.

So only once have they survived by a whisker. Each other dynasty came perilously close to losing on 2 occasions.


2. I think their 2020 flag is their greatest achievement.

Yes, 17 games and short quarters.

But Richmond had unique challenges- with the top 2 teams staying home all year, Richmond was travelling.

Anyone who has kids or partners will appreciate that those players faced a tough decision. Either A. Don’t see your kids for months (or in some cases, wives and girlfriends) or B. Uproot your family from their entire existence.

When Australia goes to England and wins The Ashes, part of the reason it’s special is because they’re travelling for months. Richmond’s 2020 flag was a little like winning the Ashes, compared to their previous flags won at home.

A super effort by Richmond. And a super effort by Geelong to get within a quarter too. Both won away prelims after being in hubs for 3 months.

Cricketers are used to that, and had eyerolls about AFL 2020. I think the point in tests is the home team has so much scope to doctor the match conditions - thats the achievement

 

[PJays]

Cricketers are used to that, and had eyerolls about AFL 2020. I think the point in tests is the home team has so much scope to doctor the match conditions - thats the achievement

Of course the ground conditions are the biggest factor in cricket.

Nonetheless the sacrifice made by many if the players in the hubs, and the personal toll of being on the road in terms of families and disruption to family life, was also massive. Anyone with kids should especially appreciate this- and both Richmond and Geelong have plenty of players in that boat.

 

[Pessimistic]

Oh I thought this argument had been left behind many pages ago

Hawthorn had 6 players who played through from 08 to 15.

That's not the work of a "team".

You can argue Hawthorn was a better club over whatever time period you choose, but this thread from the OP and the dates provided, is meant to be about dynasties of teams, not clubs.

My argument has only ever been that Geelong 07-11>Bris 00-04 and Haw 11-15 and Rich

You could possibly add in 99 or 16 but makes no real difference to my arguments

Edit- also I'm no Cats fan. One of the few neutrals posting regularly here too!

Im agreeing that its not that much a deciding factor, but I did little 'digging on the other three teams. Its enlightening on list building and winning culture building. Those 6 players won a flag 3-4 years before the Dynasty 4-5 years (although it appears brisbane was just 4 and Richmonds 5th will be 2021)

7 years before their last flag (or 2021 for richmond) the other teams had this number of three flag players playing games:

Brisbane 12, Geelong 10 and Richmond 7. Its a whos who of the 21st century. Hawthorn would add 4 players via trade, Brisbane 3 Geelong 1 and Richmond 1
(threepeat members that is) Helping to make up the Hawks 17 Cats 12 Lions 16 and Tigers 12 three flag players


Given its Hawks just 6 I reckon that explains how the Hawks werent really rated in 09-10,and had to have significant trade ins to be at the top.
The question remains though, Voss injury aside, How did a team with the other 11 Brisbane three flag players already there slump to a spoon in '98 (16 losses). They since had the most rapid rise (seen in the squiggle) ever seen. obviously something was a bigger wake up call than the other three teams got.

In eqivalent timeframes Hawks won a flag (08) worst season 09 (13 losses) Geelong semis (04) worst season 06 (11 losses) or Tigers finals 13-14-15 and worst season 2016 (14 losses)

 

[Pessimistic]

Posters who say they don't really rate back to back to back (excuse my scepticism by the way) - You acknowledge that a vast number of people and commentators do?

 

[Roby]

Posters who say they don't really rate back to back to back (excuse my scepticism by the way) - You acknowledge that a vast number of people and commentators do?

I've literally not seen this argument ever, in Italy, in England, in the US... just on this forum.

In fact I think that the premiership captain of Geelong 2011 premiership team said in 2014 that Hawthorn had surpassed the Geelong team. What would he know.

 

[PJays]

Posters who say they don't really rate back to back to back (excuse my scepticism by the way) - You acknowledge that a vast number of people and commentators do?

Absolutely I do rate B2b

I just don't rate the Hawks and Lions 3-peats as great as Geelongs 3 flags for all the reasons I've spent 40 pages discussing

Its all context dependent and every situation is different.

Were 90s Adelaide any greater than 90s North or West Coast?

Imagine Sydney went b2b in 06 then beat Hawthorn in 2014. Would the 05-06 team be any greater than the 12-14 team?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Every club thinks they had the worst injury run, often because they overrate their mid tier players. I mean, West Coast won in 2018 without Nic Nat, Gaff* and Shepherd, our top three in this year’s B&F. Didn’t have the luxury of getting them back for the grand final.

I’d say losing Rance, Cotchin, Riewoldt for 12+ games each were big losses in 2019. Chuck in a couple of injuries to other players each week are they’re well short.

This year, losing your reigning B&F winner for 3 months, both your current All Australians for 2 months, your captain for a month, and your 2nd key defender for 3 months in a shortened season was significant. Chuck in injury troubles to both ruckmen.

Richmond played 5-6 key players down for most of the year.

 

[Pessimistic]

Absolutely I do rate B2b

I just don't rate the Hawks and Lions 3-peats as great as Geelongs 3 flags for all the reasons I've spent 40 pages discussing

Its all context dependent and every situation is different.

Were 90s Adelaide any greater than 90s North or West Coast?

Imagine Sydney went b2b in 06 then beat Hawthorn in 2014. Would the 05-06 team be any greater than the 12-14 team?

‘well the hawks 83-89 and 91 was greater, but they never managed b2b2b, but these are real scenarios not what ifs. The comparison you were looking for is right there