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

[Roby]

The discussion is about five year periods and why 3 in 5 is no worse than 3 straight.

What does that period have to do with it?

ok.

 

[KissKiss]

the ones I'm surprised at are Michael and White. I'd have thought they'd have been good enough for at least one start between them

From memory Michael was controversially not given the 2002 Full Back spot. I think Pavlich got it despite not playing the full year in defence. Then later on I think was the start of the rise of Scarlet in 2003/4 that stopped him getting another.

I feel like there was stuff at the time that Johnson (or other backman) should/could have won more spots too but looking at the teams I cant be clear if thats true or not

 

[CaptainHowdy87]

My vote is for Geelong. They were practically untouchable from 2007-2011.

They were on cruise-control most of the time and still steamrolled most sides. On the rare occasions their backs were against the wall, they usually found a way to prevail. They had 5 or 6 10-15 goal wins every season in that time. They just absolutely crushed some sides. I remember so many games where it just seemed like game over for the opposing side after the first qtr. They rarely had to get out of 2nd gear. Elite players in every position. By far the most skilled side, and always had the toughness there to fight back against sides that wanted to play dirty.

All that being said, I struggled to enjoy the majority of their games. I was bored to tears by their keepings off, chipping the ball around style of play. I enjoyed Hawthorn games much more during their dominance, and I really love Richmond's get the ball forward at any cost style of play as well. Richmond games are rarely not exciting and full of highlights, no matter who they're playing. I only ever got excited for a Geelong game if they were against a top 4 side who actually had a chance.

I rated our side very highly in 2010-2011, and after 2 dominant victories that year over Geelong in both the H&A season and in the finals, I really thought we had their number going into 2011. I think our only losses that year were twice to Geelong in the H&A season, and then of course, in the Grand Final in which we were thoroughly outclassed, especially in the 2nd half. I can't remember coming into that Grand Final with any injuries, suspensions or anyone down on form. We were comprehensively beaten by the better side. Obviously, I rated Geelong very highly at the time, but I truly had to tip my hat to them after that. They cemented their place as THE best side in the comp of that era. I wasn't bitter after that loss at all. I wasn't happy, but I wasn't left with any "what if?" questions in my mind afterwards. If anything, that loss answered any questions I previously had about how good Geelong truly were.

That's it for now. I'll make a post later talking about the Hawthorn and Richmond sides, as I've got a bit to say about them as well.

 

[Fadge]

My vote is for Geelong. They were practically untouchable from 2007-2011.

They were on cruise-control most of the time and still steamrolled most sides. On the rare occasions their backs were against the wall, they usually found a way to prevail. They had 5 or 6 10-15 goal wins every season in that time. They just absolutely crushed some sides. I remember so many games where it just seemed like game over for the opposing side after the first qtr. They rarely had to get out of 2nd gear. Elite players in every position. By far the most skilled side, and always had the toughness there to fight back against sides that wanted to play dirty.

All that being said, I struggled to enjoy the majority of their games. I was bored to tears by their keepings off, chipping the ball around style of play. I enjoyed Hawthorn games much more during their dominance, and I really love Richmond's get the ball forward at any cost style of play as well. Richmond games are rarely not exciting and full of highlights, no matter who they're playing. I only ever got excited for a Geelong game if they were against a top 4 side who actually had a chance.

I rated our side very highly in 2010-2011, and after 2 dominant victories that year over Geelong in both the H&A season and in the finals, I really thought we had their number going into 2011. I think our only losses that year were twice to Geelong in the H&A season, and then of course, in the Grand Final in which we were thoroughly outclassed, especially in the 2nd half. I can't remember coming into that Grand Final with any injuries, suspensions or anyone down on form. We were comprehensively beaten by the better side. Obviously, I rated Geelong very highly at the time, but I truly had to tip my hat to them after that. They cemented their place as THE best side in the comp of that era. I wasn't bitter after that loss at all. I wasn't happy, but I wasn't left with any "what if?" questions in my mind afterwards. If anything, that loss answered any questions I previously had about how good Geelong truly were.

That's it for now. I'll make a post later talking about the Hawthorn and Richmond sides, as I've got a bit to say about them as well.

Fantastic post.

As Collingwood supporters, we had box seat tickets to witness exactly how dominant Geelong were over that period, given the number of big games we found ourselves contesting against them in.

It's also probably why the Richmond, Carlton, Essendon supporters don't rate them as highly as we do, given they no vested interest in the competition during those years.

 

[Final Siren]

Fantastic post.

As Collingwood supporters, we had box seat tickets to witness exactly how dominant Geelong were over that period, given the number of big games we found ourselves contesting against them in.

It's also probably why the Richmond, Carlton, Essendon supporters don't rate them as highly as we do, given they no vested interest in the competition during those years.

If anything, I rate peak Geelong higher because I watched them kick 35 goals against us, whereas we somehow won 3 out of 4 against peak Hawthorn from 2012 to 2015.

 

[SleepingGiant]

I just watched our highlights in our finals series’. We have dominated so strongly in our three flag years and are a colossus side. We are not going anywhere next year and if we win, this will be put to bed. 4/5 in an 18 team competition. Hawthorn right now is the best with 4 in their run as 2008 was early, but included. We have a chance to be the greatest of all time and I am truely grateful to be able to watch it. Dusty is already the finals goat and will have a chance to become the GOAT if he does this again.

 

[PJays]

Hawthorn right now is the best with 4 in their run as 2008 was early, but included.

This is why I don't include Hawthorn's 08 flag in this discussion

Only 6 players won the 08 premiership and were still there, winning the 2015 premiership- Birchall, Mitchell, Rioli, Roughhead, Hodge, Lewis

Important players who played in 1 or the other

Buddy - 08 Coleman medallist. 2008 Hawthorn B & F. All Australian full forward.

Williams – 46 goals for Hawthorn in 2008, including their leading goal scorer in the GF with 3.

Gibson – 2015 All Australian team member. 2015 Hawthorn B & F

Burgoyne – 2015 All Australian Squad member.

Gunston – 2015 All Australian squad member, Hawthorn’s leading goal kicker with 57 goals

Breust – Hawthorn’s 2nd leading goal kicker in 2015 with 52 goals.

Lake – Gun full back, 2007 Dogs B & F, 2009 and 2010 All Australian. 2013 Norm Smith for Hawthorn.

Smith – Gun winger, led Hawthorn for inside 50’s in 2015, 23 disposals and 1 goal per game.

6 of the top 10 of Hawthorn’s 2015 B & F didn’t play in 08 (Gibson, Burgoyne, Stratton, Breust, Smith, Gunston)

Hawthorn only played 1 final across 2009 and 2010, and they lost by 5 goals. They re-booted when they added players like Burgoyne, Gibson.

The 3 peat team was a different group. Same club, different players (mostly)

It makes sense to compare great teams, or to compare clubs. But if you start comparing clubs, where do you stop? Are you looking at the AFL era, all time, or something else? Any is fine, as long as you define your terms

 

[Do the Dew]

There is zero facts to your opinion here so please don't use the "every sports fan would disagree here"

A flag goes down in the record books as a flag. Romance of it doing it two years in a row doesn't remove the weight of winning another premiership. You are completely discrediting the logic behind just how difficult it was for Geelong to maintain such a dominant winning record % over such a long period because "its hard to do over two years and fans like it"

Simple question. Would you rather win two flags back to back in 5 years or a total of 3 across the 5 separated by a year?

To use your logic, Every sports fan will take the 3 in 5.

I'd prefer 3 in 4 years - or better yet, 3 in 3. Both of these are superior to 3 in 5.

Again if a team like Geelong from 07-11 was that much better than everyone else, why couldn't they go back to back?

 

[Pacman77]

I'd prefer 3 in 4 years - or better yet, 3 in 3. Both of these are superior to 3 in 5.

Again if a team like Geelong from 07-11 was that much better than everyone else, why couldn't they go back to back?

Not sure if this point has been raised already - one thing the other teams didn't have to endure was profound rule changes which directly impacted on their playing style and match day tactics.

 

[Do the Dew]

Not sure if this point has been raised already - one thing the other teams didn't have to endure was profound rule changes which directly impacted on their playing style and match day tactics.

Not to mention rebuilding our list through compromised drafts, not taking any AFL handouts such as priority picks, and dealing with COVID season 2020. All in all, that's some pretty rough adversity yet we still came out with 3 flags.

 

[Final Siren]

I'd prefer 3 in 4 years - or better yet, 3 in 3. Both of these are superior to 3 in 5.

Again if a team like Geelong from 07-11 was that much better than everyone else, why couldn't they go back to back?

This is a key question that cuts to the heart of the issue, I reckon. It's about how you see the game.

I think there are two groups of people. First you have people who say that a truly great team should always win, any place, any time, against any opposition. So the fact that Geelong couldn't get it done in 2008, for example, is damning evidence that they simply weren't good enough.

In the other camp are people who cut teams slack for having bad days. They see 2008 - and other upsets, like how the 2010 Grand Final ended in a draw and then the replay was a 56-point win to Collingwood - as evidence that you can get tripped up no matter how good you are.

 

[RichLeMonde]

This is a key question that cuts to the heart of the issue, I reckon. It's about how you see the game.

I think there are two groups of people. First you have people who say that a truly great team should always win, any place, any time, against any opposition. So the fact that Geelong couldn't get it done in 2008, for example, is damning evidence that they simply weren't good enough.

In the other camp are people who cut teams slack for having bad days. They see 2008 - and other upsets, like how the 2010 Grand Final ended in a draw and then the replay was a 56-point win to Collingwood - as evidence that you can get tripped up no matter how good you are.

I think the people in the first group display a failure of logic, though.

They laud a 3-peat but criticise 3 in 5 years. Well, another way to think of these 2 outcomes is that both entail a failure to achieve a 5-peat. The only difference is that Geelong failed in 08 and 10, whereas Brisbane failed in 00 and 04. Brisbane didn't, in fact, win any place, any time - they lost in the years immediately outside of their 3-peat. It is an arbitrary convention to restrict the frame of reference to 3 years - it is just as arbitrary as focusing on a 5 year period, as I have done above. If we're going to criticise Geelong for failing in 08 and 10, why can't we criticise Brisbane equally for failing in 00 and 04?

 

[Milux]

Surely the travel we have to face every year (apart from this season) puts us above those others. We may have faired better in the 04 grand final too if it weren't for a stupid technicality as we earnt the right to a home prelim only for it to be taken away from us.

The other 3 teams are great also though. This Richmond team is probably not done either. They could easily be competing for their 4th in 5 years next season.

 

[PhatBoy]

Not to mention rebuilding our list through compromised drafts, not taking any AFL handouts such as priority picks, and dealing with COVID season 2020. All in all, that's some pretty rough adversity yet we still came out with 3 flags.

Yeah you've done it so tough compared to Geelong (0 priority picks), Brisbane (0 priority picks) and Hawthorn (2 priority picks - one was traded to them from Fremantle anyway, and the other was, wait for it, Xavier Ellis

Xavier Ellis

Age

36

Ht

186cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

8.9

3star

HB

7.3

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.5

4star

MG

272.9

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.6

3star

K

6.2

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

0.8

3star

).

Every other team dealt with Covid too. Some had it a bit tougher than others - that is standard for an AFL season. Through no fault or excellence of your own, in your other two premierships, you've spent the majority of the season at the same venue with the occasional sojourn to the airport.

 

[PhatBoy]

I think the people in the first group display a failure of logic, though.

They laud a 3-peat but criticise 3 in 5 years. Well, another way to think of these 2 outcomes is that both entail a failure to achieve a 5-peat. The only difference is that Geelong failed in 08 and 10, whereas Brisbane failed in 00 and 04. Brisbane didn't, in fact, win any place, any time - they lost in the years immediately outside of their 3-peat. It is an arbitrary convention to restrict the frame of reference to 3 years - it is just as arbitrary as focusing on a 5 year period, as I have done above. If we're going to criticise Geelong for failing in 08 and 10, why can't we criticise Brisbane equally for failing in 00 and 04?

Thank you. That's about as simply as it can be put.

yes we blew it in 08. But I'm fairly sure the same core group of players winning 3 grand finals, 1 by 20 goals and the other 2 over teams that lost 4 times in total across 44 home and away games, would suggest, just slightly, that we didn't fluke our way to multiple flags. 08 is the outlier, not 07/09/11

 

[RichLeMonde]

Thank you. That's about as simply as it can be put.

yes we blew it in 08. But I'm fairly sure the same core group of players winning 3 grand finals, 1 by 20 goals and the other 2 over teams that lost 4 times in total across 44 home and away games, would suggest, just slightly, that we didn't fluke our way to multiple flags. 08 is the outlier, not 07/09/11

Agree. You can't really argue with results, so Hawthorn with 4 flags have to be rated the best dynasty, but if you guys won in 08 I think that would have left us with a more accurate picture of the 4 best sides of the millenium - Richmond, Hawthorn and Brisbane more similar than different in terms of achievement and dominance (since Hawthorn would have 3 not 4 flags), and Geelong a clear step above with 4 flags, the insane win-loss record, AA reps, etc etc. Unfortunately they got you on the day, so our sense of where the great sides fit historically has to accommodate the result of that 2 hours... And we have to put up with Hawks supporters reminding us of that lol

 

[Final Siren]

I think the people in the first group display a failure of logic, though.

They laud a 3-peat but criticise 3 in 5 years. Well, another way to think of these 2 outcomes is that both entail a failure to achieve a 5-peat. The only difference is that Geelong failed in 08 and 10, whereas Brisbane failed in 00 and 04. Brisbane didn't, in fact, win any place, any time - they lost in the years immediately outside of their 3-peat. It is an arbitrary convention to restrict the frame of reference to 3 years - it is just as arbitrary as focusing on a 5 year period, as I have done above. If we're going to criticise Geelong for failing in 08 and 10, why can't we criticise Brisbane equally for failing in 00 and 04?

Aw, dunno about that. When it's a fixed window, as in your example, then okay - but then we're discussing, "Which team had the best five-year period?", which isn't where we started.

Without a fixed time period, though, 3/3 still gives you the distinction of being able to claim that you literally couldn't have done any better. Which isn't true for 3/5.

There's a reason why a hat trick is special and three wickets in 5 balls is just good bowling.

 

[Leeda]

We've done alright.. we don't do anything but win when we can and when we do it is emphatic..

overall we have a tremendously winning percentage of quartering and entering the twilight zone..

sensation of the rank and file are there for all to see...

 

[RichLeMonde]

Aw, dunno about that. When it's a fixed window, as in your example, then okay - but then we're discussing, "Which team had the best five-year period?", which isn't where we started.

Without a fixed time period, though, 3/3 still gives you the distinction of being able to claim that you literally couldn't have done any better. Which isn't true for 3/5.

There's a reason why a hat trick is special and three wickets in 5 balls is just good bowling.

Sure, we started with 'which team is the greatest dynasty?' My point is that focusing on a 3-peat is implicitly restricting it to a 3 year period, since it ignores the failures either side of the 3-peat. To say regarding a 3-peat that 'you couldn't have done any better' requires restricting it to that time period, which is quite arbitrary, and no more inherently valid than focusing on a 5 year period.

In terms of the notion of a dynasty, I think it's actually more dynasty-like to win over a 5 year stretch, like Geelong, or over an 8 year period like Hawthorn, where there's ongoing premiership success but with some player turnover. That's where I think the hat-trick analogy breaks down - it's just too different a thing.

 

[Fadge]

Aw, dunno about that. When it's a fixed window, as in your example, then okay - but then we're discussing, "Which team had the best five-year period?", which isn't where we started.

Without a fixed time period, though, 3/3 still gives you the distinction of being able to claim that you literally couldn't have done any better. Which isn't true for 3/5.

There's a reason why a hat trick is special and three wickets in 5 balls is just good bowling.

See, the problem with this is that when talking about 'Dynasties', longevity is crucial.

You also can't do any better than 2 from 2, so is that better than 3 from 4?

Geelong were the best team in the comp between 2007 and 2011 for all but a few months. That is easily the best dynasty, in the absence of others having 4 from 4, 4 from 5, etc.

 

[PJays]

Aw, dunno about that. When it's a fixed window, as in your example, then okay - but then we're discussing, "Which team had the best five-year period?", which isn't where we started.

Without a fixed time period, though, 3/3 still gives you the distinction of being able to claim that you literally couldn't have done any better. Which isn't true for 3/5.

There's a reason why a hat trick is special and three wickets in 5 balls is just good bowling.

But you haven’t answered an important question- why are you choosing 3 years?

"because you couldn't have done any better"? Well yes, you could've, you could've won 4 in a row. Or 5 in a row. But none of these teams did that. They all won 3. So then the question becomes- which 3 time winner was better?

If you’re asking “who’s the better team over 3 years” then the answer is obvious- Brisbane, narrowly followed by Hawthorn. With Geelong and Richmond next - since they’ve only won 2 in 3.

If you’re asking “who was the better club over any 10 year period”? You’d pick Hawthorn from 2007 to 2016. 4 flags from 5 grand finals.

The last 15 years? I’d pick Geelong. Although they have 3 flags and Hawthorn have 4, Geelong have been a finals team almost every year. Hawthorn have had some rubbish years (the last 2 years, for example).

The last 30 years? I’d go with West Coast. 4 flags, and climbed the mountain 3 times with 3 different coaches and 3 different teams. Finals in 23 of the last 30 years. (Hawthorn have 5 flags, but they've missed the finals 13 times. I would've rather been a West Coast fan than a fan of any other team for this 30 year period, which is the best question to ask when answering this).

We can discuss any of these things, as long as we define our terms. But I'll circle back to my question- why are you choosing 3 years? Why is it considered greater to be a great team over 3 years, than it is to be a great team for say, 5 years? Or 6 years for that matter?

But if you’re asking which team was better overall? Then you need to include everything a particular team did. Not restrict this to any arbitrary period of years.

And what is a “team”? I’d say it’s when you have most of the same 22, and most of the same stars. Otherwise you’re stretching the definition of a “team” I reckon. And a team could last for 2 years, or it could last for 7.

That’s what my previous post (here) was trying to do- analyse all these clubs using this consistent definition of team. Hence Geelong from 2007 – 2011, Brisbane 2000-2004 and Hawthorn 2011-2015 all meet this definition (maybe you could’ve gone back or forward an extra year or 2, but I didn’t go into that level of detail to see if those extra years could reasonably be described as the same “teams”).

And under that analysis, Geelong from 2007 – 2011 seemed obviously the greatest “team” under discussion.

 

[PhatBoy]

Aw, dunno about that. When it's a fixed window, as in your example, then okay - but then we're discussing, "Which team had the best five-year period?", which isn't where we started.

Without a fixed time period, though, 3/3 still gives you the distinction of being able to claim that you literally couldn't have done any better. Which isn't true for 3/5.

There's a reason why a hat trick is special and three wickets in 5 balls is just good bowling.

No one regards an over in which a hat trick was achieved as a better over than one on which three wickets were taken non sequentially.

It’s rare, sure, and exciting but the nett outcome is the same

 

[Harvey Leadpipe]

I went Geelong. Agree with some previous that peak-Cats was as attractive as the games been played. Was almost Harlem Globetrotter like. Blind handpasses from Stevie J, Gary Jr never wasting a touch, Chappy dobbing them from everywhere, Scarlo providing flair and dash whilst being a defensive rock, wet weather brilliance from Jimmy B. It had it all.

Brisbane were September specialists, bullies, guns and awesome to watch. I can't think of a player in their side I didn't enjoy watching, Aker being my No 1. My only asterix on them is did they get the unfair advantage of taking the best a dead Fitzroy had to offer (which were bloody handy players to top up with), then leave the carcass to rot?

I'm far from a Hawthorn hater, I think their run and their stars were brilliant, but somehow find their 3-peat diminished because of the compromised drafts right through their period. Challengers didn't get much of a chance to top up as the two newbies got the first 200 best young players each year, and if you were already rubbish, you'd essentially get pick 201. So they were sort of in a sweet spot to be good and stay good for a while.

Then I take my Tiges hat off and try and be neutral. But with all the talk of boring footy, game is broken, flooding, change the rules etc etc etc these days, teams that move the ball forward as quickly as they can are great to watch. And the Tiges do this the best these days. Brissy close, as is Port, St K and the Doggies when on fire. They're a bit like Brissy the Tiges, where they seem happy to coast in April/May/June, but warm up the fire when the season matters. So they don't get rated on the "domination" rankings of belting every team all year round, but who cares. Apart from Dusty, we don't have the superstars that the other teams have, hence why they'd be rated lower (and I agree), but the "collectiveness" of the group seems to surpass all the others as an outside observer. And think they might have more to fire too.


As a side note, whilst I'm absorbing and loving every minute of our current run, it will come to an end. If someone has to take the mantle for the next "dynasty" discussion, I hope it's the Saints. Get them back under the Dome, and look out September. Just not for a few years though....

 

[Leeda]

This is a key question that cuts to the heart of the issue, I reckon. It's about how you see the game.

I think there are two groups of people. First you have people who say that a truly great team should always win, any place, any time, against any opposition. So the fact that Geelong couldn't get it done in 2008, for example, is damning evidence that they simply weren't good enough.

In the other camp are people who cut teams slack for having bad days. They see 2008 - and other upsets, like how the 2010 Grand Final ended in a draw and then the replay was a 56-point win to Collingwood - as evidence that you can get tripped up no matter how good you are.

Clarko doesn't have bad days.. he has days of personal introspection.. he thinks and he ploughs the field.. and then he tortures his recruits
nicely so that they are hard and they are together..

 

[Leeda]

Just want to say this is a very entertaining thread and can't get enough of the people who say this and say that..
The rabble we are aint quite the rabble we pretend to be.. love you all...