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

[Roby]

You debunked it by googling someone else’s work.

you haven’t provided a single piece of well thought out, coherent, numbers based piece of evidence in this entire thread, and most of the people who actually disagree with my view on the actual topic would agree with me.

some people in this thread are having a reason based, analytical debate that has some good points on both sides.

then there’s you. At least try and come up with anything of your own, back it with fact and assessment, dissect it, present it.

at the moment you’re merely comic relief

I gave you heaps of numbers.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Is it more of a team than 9 players? Just ask your nasa mates to work that one out for us all and save us the brainpower please

The NASA guys will tell you that winning 3 in 3 years is much tougher than winning 3 in 5.

In fact, anybody with a fraction of a brain and their head not shoved up their own arse will tell you that.

 

[Roby]

Umm yes it does, dummy. Here's the dictionary.

Subjective definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Subjective definition: Something that is subjective is based on personal opinions and feelings rather than on... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

And here's the thesaurus for you idiotboy.

Synonyms of subjective | Thesaurus.com

Synonyms for subjective from Thesaurus.com, the world’s leading online source for synonyms, antonyms, and more.

www.thesaurus.com

Subjective quite literally means biased.

I've already explained this to him. They just keep embarrassing themselves with each biased post they put up.

 

[PhatBoy]

The NASA guys will tell you that winning 3 in 3 years is much tougher than winning 3 in 5.

In fact, anybody with a fraction of a brain and their head not shoved up their own arse will tell you that.

Will they. Ok. Because you said so, I assume.

 

[Roby]

The NASA guys will tell you that winning 3 in 3 years is much tougher than winning 3 in 5.

In fact, anybody with a fraction of a brain and their head not shoved up their own arse will tell you that.

What would be more impressive.. going to the moon three consecutive times with no failur or going three times but failing another two times.

 

[PhatBoy]

I gave you heaps of numbers.

the majority of the numbers you have faffed around with have been based on what such and such a team did years later, or because of a non thrashing in a game they won 63 days before a final it must indicate that Geelong were vastly overrated. Every numeric bearing you have tried to put on your point of view has been refuted like a Rahul Dravid forward defence.

 

[PhatBoy]

What would be more impressive.. going to the moon three consecutive times with no failur or going three times but failing another two times.

if you bookended your three trips with two f*** ups, neither.

 

[PJays]

Subjective quite literally means biased.

Just because in some very limited circumstances "subjective" could be used in a similar sense to "biased" does not mean the words always mean the same thing.

This is a footy forum to debate footy.

Most footy opinions are ultimately subjective. They're only biased if they're unfairly prejudiced for some reason.

Since I'm a St Kilda fan who's spent 70% of my posts in this thread defending Geelong's greatness, if that's your criticism then......

 

[Roby]

Is it more of a team than 9 players? Just ask your nasa mates to work that one out for us all and save us the brainpower please

14 players is still not a team.

 

[PhatBoy]

14 players is still not a team.

Freakish insight

 

[Soberian Tiger]

it’s a grand final. There is pressure on whether you’ve won 30 flags or 0.

what happened 20 years ago had absolutely no bearing on what happened in that game or any other game.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Except maybe some of the thoughts that come from between some posters' ears.

 

[Roby]

Freakish insight

You tried to argue "it's more of a team". Excellent insight.

 

[PhatBoy]

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Except maybe some of the thoughts that come from between some posters' ears.

And attributing a mistake in a grand final to 42 years of previous unrelated heartbreak rather than, say, the natural pressure of a grand final, the perceived pressure of an opponent’s actions, or, wait for it, the mistakes that players make literally every time they take to the football field, is placing a great deal more self importance on one’s own psychological credentials than a person probably should

 

[PhatBoy]

You tried to argue "it's more of a team". Excellent insight.

You’ve just said 14 players isn’t a team.
I could just as easily say Buddy was missing from 2014 so it’s not the same 22 that won the previous year, so no dynasty for hawthorn.

 

[Roby]

You’ve just said 14 players isn’t a team.
I could just as easily say Buddy was missing from 2014 so it’s not the same 22 that won the previous year, so no dynasty for hawthorn.

You don't need the same team to create a dynasty.

 

[PhatBoy]

You don't need the same team to create a dynasty.

I think when you’re discussing which team was the strongest, it helps

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

I've stayed away from this thread. I'm not really interested on injecting myself to the conversation.

However I will say I've gone back 10 or so pages and some (most) of the discussion has been good.


My only point will be this. Gee, it's great to be one of the 4 teams, because at least then you're in the conversation, and that can't be taken away.

 

[Roby]

I've stayed away from this thread. I'm not really interested on injecting myself to the conversation.

However I will say I've gone back 10 or so pages and some (most) of the discussion has been good.


My only point will be this. Gee, it's great to be one of the 4 teams, because at least then you're in the conversation, and that can't be taken away.

It's not that difficult to work out.

Tigers make GF next year they're clearly the second best behind Hawthorn. Richmond won back to back in a pandemic year.

They will have made 5 prelims in row like the Hawks. Made 3 GF in a row like the Hawks.

If the Tigers we're to win next year they equal Hawthorn at the very least, if not surpass them dependant on how its won.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

It's not that difficult to work out.

Tigers make GF next year they're clearly the second best behind Hawthorn. Richmond won back to back in a pandemic year.

They will have made 5 prelims in row like the Hawks. Made 3 GF in a row like the Hawks.

If the Tigers we're to win next year they equal Hawthorn at the very least, if not surpass them dependant on how its won.

In your eyes.

 

[Roby]

In your eyes.

Sure.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Point stands. You guys are having a conversation, and you're only talking 4 teams. All 4 are in it. It's then a mix of data and opinion.

The glasses you wear tint things. Most people have a tint.

 

[PJays]

It's not that difficult to work out.

Tigers make GF next year they're clearly the second best behind Hawthorn. Richmond won back to back in a pandemic year.

If the Tigers we're to win next year they equal Hawthorn at the very least, if not surpass them dependant on how its won.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Premierships- Finals average point differentials

(Average margins)


Geelong

• 2007: 76.7
• 2009: 33
• 2011: 39
• Total: 49.6 (1,041 points for, 595 against, 9 games).

Brisbane

• 2001: 42
• 2002: 45.3
• 2003: 30.3
• Total: 38.3 (1,069 points for, 686 points against, 10 games).

Richmond

• 2017: 45
• 2019: 51.7
• 2020: 13.2
• Total: 34.3 (874 points for, 531 against, 10 games).

Hawthorn

• 2013: 24.7.
• 2014: 34.7
• 2015: 28.9
• Total: 29.3 (1,022 points for, 729 against, 10 games).

Take home points

• The perception of Brisbane and Richmond being “finals teams” is a bit overblown. They’re known as such because they raise their level in finals- but that starts from a lower level during home & away. Geelong didn’t lift as much for finals because they had a higher starting point - being far superior in home and away records.

• When you consider finals in isolation, in each team's premiership years, Geelong was easily the most dominant.

Geelong were more dominant in home and away, more dominant in finals, and they played stronger oppositions overall.

Yet they have a weaker W/L ratio

Brisbane: 11-2 (84.6%)
Richmond: 10-2 (83.3%)
Geelong: 12-3 (80.0%)

Hawthorn: 11-2 (84.6%) or 12-4 (75%), depending on which years you are looking at.

Brisbane and Richmond aren’t remembered as better finals teams because they lifted more, they were remember that way because they were more consistent in finals.

And if you were to line their years up using you criteria they’d be ordered:

2007 Geelong (against piss weak opposition)
2019 Richmond
2002 Brisbane
2017 Richmond
2001 Brisbane
2011 Geelong
2009 Geelong
2003 Brisbane
2020 Richmond

 

[Pessimistic]

Arguing future hypotheticals. Why not?

 

[JackOutback]

The NASA guys will tell you that winning 3 in 3 years is much tougher than winning 3 in 5.

In fact, anybody with a fraction of a brain and their head not shoved up their own arse will tell you that.

Like Lotto, each new season is a new 'game', with the same challenges and pressures. Each year is as tough as the next. Hawthorn's best three years are better than Geelong's, but Geelong's best five years are better than Hawthorn's best five and so on.

But the romanticism of consecutive premierships is a real thing and why we value them more.