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

[Final Siren]

This to me clearly articulates why the argument is between Geelong and Brisbane

If you value the ability to rise to the occasion on the biggest stage for 3 years straight and the associated aura that creates, vote Brisbane. If you value winning on the road, vote Brisbane.

If you value longevity, vote Geelong. If you value truly great performances (like winning a grand final by 119 points after winning the qualifying final 3 weeks earlier by 106. Or comfortably winning the GF against a team who never lost a game to anyone else), vote Geelong. If you value triumph against awesome opposition, vote Geelong.

I value the second group more, so I've made the case for Geelong.

But why would anyone vote for Hawthorn or Richmond?

The case for Hawthorn over Brisbane can be summed up in a number: 2003.

The Lions' remarkable achievement of completing their three-peat obscures the fact that they were nowhere near as dominant that season as they had been in 2001 and 2002. They won fewer games, and their percentage was worse, to the point where they were 1 win away from missing the top 4 altogether.

They deserved the flag, of course, but it was a premiership won from a finals surge, not a season-long dominance.

Hawthorn, by contrast, were the league powerhouse throughout all three of their flag years (and, arguably, 2012 as well).

	Flag Year 1​	Flag Year 2​	Flag Year 3​
Brisbane 2001-2003	17 - 5 127%​	17 - 5 137%​	14 - 1 - 7 122%​
Hawthorn 2013-2015	19 - 3 136%​	17 - 5 141%​	16 - 6 158%​

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

PJays you posted the following question after making your case for 1. Geelong and 2. Brisbane:

"Why would anyone vote for Hawthorn or Richmond?”

After 60+ pages of some at times perfectly reasonable arguments being advanced….then you have the unmitigated gall to make sweeping statements about the lack of value in people’s posts who disagree with you. Even Roby who has copped so much flak from you and others has made some perfectly reasonable points in defence of his position. So there are very obvious reasons that people might argue for the Hawks for a start that your question both denies and dismisses.

Make your arguments for the Cats, but having read a lot of your posts it appears you have have started from an impression you think the Cats are the greatest dynasty and then found reasons to justify it rather than starting from facts and reasoning your way to your conclusions. Which is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Also, you are shapeshifting now. On one hand you ask a question completely dismissive of any argument for Hawthorn or Richmond UNCONDITIONALLY. Now in the part I have bolded in your post above you are adding the condition that a person needs to be arguing from the same framework as you you for this question to be relevant as if that was made clear from the start. It wasn’t. Don’t shapeshift. Just concede the error and move on.

Your second point above, I would not be sermonising about lack of quality engagement with others who disagree if I were you.

Just shut up you pompous tool.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

The case for Hawthorn over Brisbane can be summed up in a number: 2003.

The Lions' remarkable achievement of completing their three-peat obscures the fact that they were nowhere near as dominant that season as they had been in 2001 and 2002. They won fewer games, and their percentage was worse, to the point where they were 1 win away from missing the top 4 altogether.

They deserved the flag, of course, but it was a premiership won from a finals surge, not a season-long dominance.

Hawthorn, by contrast, were the league powerhouse throughout all three of their flag years (and, arguably, 2012 as well).

	Flag Year 1​	Flag Year 2​	Flag Year 3​
Brisbane 2001-2003	17 - 5 127%​	17 - 5 137%​	14 - 1 - 7 122%​
Hawthorn 2013-2015	19 - 3 136%​	17 - 5 141%​	16 - 6 158%​

Meh, Hawthorn played interstate sides already weakened by the concessions to expansion teams after the Hawks were already a premiership winner & contending team. In all fact the Hawks should have added 2 more to their tally in that run..

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Haha oh please, never took you for a sooky la la.

Whatever it was Rance had nothing on Ablett at his peak.

If Martin and Dimma both walked out now, not retired but walked out, how do you really think Richmond would cope..?

Thats what the Cats dealt with and still marched on. I really don’t see Richmond doing that without Dusty & Hardwick.

Firstly, I think a mid is easier to cover than a KPD. Thats why we went to s**t for 4-5 weeks after Rance was first out. We found it difficult to adjust.

And your argument "Rance not a patch on Ablett", I don't think KPD's in general get the respect they deserve. Not even McChubbin from WC. He's a gun that is still undersold I reckon.

So I think importance wise, losing a Rance or McGovern hurts a side more. I reckon most sides are better equipped to lose a mid (one) and cover it. Just because that position plays with more numbers so has a deeper pool of players to call on.

Losing Dimma and Dusty? I don't think it would be the disaster everyone thinks. We had a superb injury run in 2017, unbelievable in fact.

But in 19 and 20 we had massive chunks of our better players out for significant periods, and we still got the job done.

So, providing a reasonable run with injury somewhere between 2017 levels and 2019/20 levels, I think we'd be ok.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

Meh, Hawthorn played interstate sides already weakened by the concessions to expansion teams after the Hawks were already a premiership winner & contending team. In all fact the Hawks should have added 2 more to their tally in that run..

Let's face it HB, all 4 dynasties are inferior to the 2018 Eagles, amirite?

 

[juss]

Winning, choking, winning again, getting demolished, then winning again against the team who demolished them is pretty damn good bro. Add into that a sustained run of wins over the team they choked to in revenge says something solid about that side.

Remember they lost the best player in the league and the best coach at the time during their run & it really is an effort hard to go past.

Mate I'm not questioning them as a great side. 2007 is probably the best individual side I've seen.

But I'm countering the view that non-consecutive premierships rate higher than consecutive ones. I have never seen that argued before just recently, in all the threads that have referenced the multiple flag sides. It's always been a pretty accepted view that 2/2 > 2/3, 3/3 > 3/5, etc.

 

[Final Siren]

The case for Hawthorn over Brisbane can be summed up in a number: 2003.

The Lions' remarkable achievement of completing their three-peat obscures the fact that they were nowhere near as dominant that season as they had been in 2001 and 2002. They won fewer games, and their percentage was worse, to the point where they were 1 win away from missing the top 4 altogether.

They deserved the flag, of course, but it was a premiership won from a finals surge, not a season-long dominance.

Hawthorn, by contrast, were the league powerhouse throughout all three of their flag years (and, arguably, 2012 as well).

	Flag Year 1​	Flag Year 2​	Flag Year 3​
Brisbane 2001-2003	17 - 5 127%​	17 - 5 137%​	14 - 1 - 7 122%​
Hawthorn 2013-2015	19 - 3 136%​	17 - 5 141%​	16 - 6 158%​

Here's another illustration of this, via Tony Corke's team ratings from Matter of Stats.

During the Hawk era, they're rated top 51 times. During the Lions era, they're the #1 team only 38 times. And during 2003, it's not even like they were jostling for supremacy vs one other team - the comp was so even, four different teams claim top spot at different times.

 

[Grrr]

Solid sook. 10/10

But realistically how do you think you would be if both Martin and Dimma suddenly walked to other clubs in the next few days?

Well the other clubs would do better, happy.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Firstly, I think a mid is easier to cover than a KPD. Thats why we went to sh*t for 4-5 weeks after Rance was first out. We found it difficult to adjust.

And your argument "Rance not a patch on Ablett", I don't think KPD's in general get the respect they deserve. Not even McChubbin from WC. He's a gun that is still undersold I reckon.

So I think importance wise, losing a Rance or McGovern hurts a side more. I reckon most sides are better equipped to lose a mid (one) and cover it. Just because that position plays with more numbers so has a deeper pool of players to call on.

Losing Dimma and Dusty? I don't think it would be the disaster everyone thinks. We had a superb injury run in 2017, unbelievable in fact.

But in 19 and 20 we had massive chunks of our better players out for significant periods, and we still got the job done.

So, providing a reasonable run with injury somewhere between 2017 levels and 2019/20 levels, I think we'd be ok.

We’re not talking about “just any mid” in 2010 tho dude. We’re talking about one of the best players we have seen.

Plus the coach.

That stuff just guts a club. Surely you realise this?

Let's face it HB, all 4 dynasties are inferior to the 2018 Eagles, amirite?

Not quite. But 2018 sure is the greatest GF win any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.

Mate I'm not questioning them as a great side. 2007 is probably the best individual side I've seen.

But I'm countering the view that non-consecutive premierships rate higher than consecutive ones. I have never seen that argued before just recently, in all the threads that have referenced the multiple flag sides. It's always been a pretty accepted view that 2/2 > 2/3, 3/3 > 3/5, etc.

It’s mostly personal choice and there wil never be a right or wrong opinion on this.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Well the other clubs would do better, happy.

Holy s**t dude. Why so sour?

If both Dimma & Martin left at once you know your club would be in a world of hurt. Everyone does.
It’s just reality.

Thing is they (Geelong) got back on the horse and avenged a prelim smashing, against a side who was being called “the best team in 100 years”..

Quite an accomplishment and there is no way I’m convinced Richmond could do the same without Martin & Dimma.
No way you’re convinced either.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Some would argue Hawthorn beat the AFL system by winning 4 in 8.

Not really.

Essendon very nearly did in 1993, and 1999-2001 what Hawthorn did in 2008 and 2013-2015.

Yeah they only missed out by a whole 2 premierships

 

[Meteoric Rise]

View attachment 1022042

Just shut up you pompous tool.

I might be a pompous tool. But after giving due consideration to your presumptuous request, I won’t be shutting up.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

I might be a pompous tool. But after giving due consideration to your presumptuous request, I won’t be shutting up.

Ok, stay mad & offended.

 

[Fadge]

Considering Martin according to many on here only comes to play only at finals times, ie not worthy of AA for the last two years, yet Richmond still are up at the pointy end of the season the last few years, perhaps we don't rely on Martin as much as you think. Obviously his Grand Final this year was a big part of the win, but that doesn't mean without martin we are no good. Certainly Martin did not have much influence on the result last GF because it was such a thumping anyway. 2017 even, many consider him not BOG, and Adelaide were never in it after half time. Perhaps the team is mightier than one player.

And what difference does it make how or why Rance left, and why would you say we 'kicked him out'. Nonsense point.

Given in order to make the top 4, Richmond had to:
- win their last 4 home and away games in 2017,
- their last 7 in 2019, and
- their last 4 in 2020.

Without Martin they don't make the top 4 in any of those years, and have no premierships.

 

[Fadge]

The case for Hawthorn over Brisbane can be summed up in a number: 2003.

The Lions' remarkable achievement of completing their three-peat obscures the fact that they were nowhere near as dominant that season as they had been in 2001 and 2002. They won fewer games, and their percentage was worse, to the point where they were 1 win away from missing the top 4 altogether.

They deserved the flag, of course, but it was a premiership won from a finals surge, not a season-long dominance.

Hawthorn, by contrast, were the league powerhouse throughout all three of their flag years (and, arguably, 2012 as well).

	Flag Year 1​	Flag Year 2​	Flag Year 3​
Brisbane 2001-2003	17 - 5 127%​	17 - 5 137%​	14 - 1 - 7 122%​
Hawthorn 2013-2015	19 - 3 136%​	17 - 5 141%​	16 - 6 158%​

Hang on, so home and away performance matters now?

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Given in order to make the top 4, Richmond had to:
- win their last 4 home and away games in 2017,
- their last 7 in 2019, and
- their last 4 in 2020.

Without Martin they don't make the top 4 in any of those years, and have no premierships.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Hang on, so home and away performance matters now?

Well it does in some degree to most of us when trying to do the ladder predictor & such but to insecure Richmond supporters it can be the final denominator in deciding such things as Dusty being the first man on the moon before Armstrong.

 

[PJays]

The case for Hawthorn over Brisbane can be summed up in a number: 2003.

The Lions' remarkable achievement of completing their three-peat obscures the fact that they were nowhere near as dominant that season as they had been in 2001 and 2002. They won fewer games, and their percentage was worse, to the point where they were 1 win away from missing the top 4 altogether.

They deserved the flag, of course, but it was a premiership won from a finals surge, not a season-long dominance.

Hawthorn, by contrast, were the league powerhouse throughout all three of their flag years (and, arguably, 2012 as well).

	Flag Year 1​	Flag Year 2​	Flag Year 3​
Brisbane 2001-2003	17 - 5 127%​	17 - 5 137%​	14 - 1 - 7 122%​
Hawthorn 2013-2015	19 - 3 136%​	17 - 5 141%​	16 - 6 158%​

Across the first two flag years Hawthorn has a very slight advantage- 1 extra win and 6.5% better on average. But when you factor in that 2013 and 2014 were straight after GWS entered the competition and playing a team of 18 year olds, and when Melbourne and St.Kilda were absolute rabbles (Melbourne in both years and St Kilda in 2014), you would expect Hawthorn's percentage to be better.

I remember sitting in my local pub and watching Hawthorn pummel St.Kilda by 145 points in 2014. Big win, but that was one of the worst Saints teams ever (and that’s really saying something).

So your argument is Hawthorn was superior because of their better H&A record in 2015 compared to Brisbane in 2003? Well both teams finished 3rd, but you're right that Hawthorn had superior W/L and %.

36% is a whopping advantage, but when you delve into the detail it doesn’t look so good:

Hawthorn’s results vs the terrible bottom 6 that year:

• Melbourne- rebuilding, 7-15, 77%- Hawthorn won by 105.
• St Kilda- rebuilding, 6-1-15, 78.4%- Hawthorn won by 63.
• Essendon- A club in disarray, impacted by the supplement saga, 6-16, 74% - Hawthorn lost to them by 2 and then beat them by 38.
• Gold Coast- Ablett, their best player followed by daylight, more daylight and then more daylight, missed most of the season- 4-1-17, 72.9%- Hawthorn won by 53.
• Brisbane- A complete rabble that year, 4-18, 67.5%- Hawthorn won by 72.
• Carlton- A complete rabble that year, 4-18, 64.8%- Hawthorn won by 138 and then by 57.

So 8 games, 7 wins a 1 loss. Average winning margin 75 points.

Against the remaining 11 opponents Hawthorn was 9 wins, 5 losses with a good, but not great percentage. Nothing special.

In 2003 there was only three relatively uncompetitive teams- going by wins and percentage. Brisbane beat all 3 by 60-80 points. So Brisbane had 3 opportunities to boost their percentage against low-standard opposition whereas Hawthorn had 8 opportunities. No wonder Hawthorn had a better percentage!

Also the results suggest Brisbane was a bit unlucky during the 2003 season- they lost 3 games by 5 points or less, another by 8 points, and a draw but didn’t win many of the close ones. So 14-1-7 could’ve easily been 16-6 or 17-5, matching or bettering Hawthorn.

Hawthorn in 2015 were the greatest beneficiaries of our Victorian centric AFL that ever existed- they got handed an undeserved home GF against a West Coast side that were dynamite in Perth but average on the road. After West Coast comfortably beat them in the qualifying final.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Hang on, you are an Eagles supporter.

WTF you doing on this thread? This skirmish has f*ck all to do with you.

 

[Rich01]

Hang on, you are an Eagles supporter.

WTF you doing on this thread? This skirmish has f*ck all to do with you.

Some West Coast supporters have an unhealthy obsession with Richmond. I have no idea why.

 

[Do the Dew]

Mate I'm not questioning them as a great side. 2007 is probably the best individual side I've seen.

But I'm countering the view that non-consecutive premierships rate higher than consecutive ones. I have never seen that argued before just recently, in all the threads that have referenced the multiple flag sides. It's always been a pretty accepted view that 2/2 > 2/3, 3/3 > 3/5, etc.

I just don't understand this rationale. As you say sequential success is better. Again using the cricket analogy:

Is it harder to take a hatrick or to take 3 wickets in 4 or 5 balls?

And most importantly:

Would you prefer to take a hatrick or to take 3 wickets in 4 or 5 balls?

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Hang on, you are an Eagles supporter.

WTF you doing on this thread? This skirmish has f*ck all to do with you.

Naaaaw, don’t let your new money attitude embarrass you...

 

[Grrr]

Given in order to make the top 4, Richmond had to:
- win their last 4 home and away games in 2017,
- their last 7 in 2019, and
- their last 4 in 2020.

Without Martin they don't make the top 4 in any of those years, and have no premierships.

Well that is at least a reasoned argument, unlike some.
We came home in 2019 with a wet sail because we had been decimated by injury during the early/mid part of that season and we were getting our full list together, Martin was part of that, but not the primary part.
Similarly we were very scratchy early this season, many were saying we were gone early on. 4 weeks out we were favourites, again due to the side not one player. Richmond's team is easily up there with the best in the dynasty argument, not arguing we had the best players, but as a unit we are up there.

 

[HAPPY BUDDHA]

Some West Coast supporters have an unhealthy obsession with Richmond. I have no idea why.

Ummm thread is about Hawks, Cats, Lions & Richmond.
Fukn LULZA how you guys think it’s only about you though.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The problem with the question is in the wording, or the use of the word dynasty in particular.
A dynsty is a period of successive rule, so relinquishing your control or title as premier in this instance does not equate to being part of a dynasty.
Bribane's dynasty lasted 3 years and they fell away, Hawthorn's dynasty lasted 3 years but needed a trial run, Richmonds dynasty is current and has spanned 2 years and Geelong won 3 flags..

Now if you want to talk about premiership success this century, Hawthorn has 4 and the rest have 3. At that point it becomes too hard to place them as many factors can be applied ie. H&A dominance, who was the opponant on GF day, who's home ground, how long it took etc. etc.

So the best 'dynasty' was Brisbane's.

But in saying that, Brisbane went up against Collingwood twice. The only team that doesn't pencil that in is st Kilda!