No more than hawthorns was to have. A non match winning lead at quarter time and then spend three quarters not putting the result six feet under deliberately
Ok buddy. Great point a non match winning lead.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No more than hawthorns was to have. A non match winning lead at quarter time and then spend three quarters not putting the result six feet under deliberately
I'm struggling to think of a more meaningless stat.The Hawks were up by an average of three goals when up in the first quarter, the same as Geelong. That's impressive to be up by three goals when leading in the first quarter.
The difference is that the Hawks won 15 first quarters to Geelong's 11.
I'm struggling to think of a more meaningless stat.
Ok buddy. Great point a non match winning lead.
A 10 second summary of the arguments for each team:
Hawthorn:
They backed up twice.
Brisbane:
They backed up twice.
They travelled.
Geelong:
They were written off, they lost the best player in the comp, then they rose again and played one of the best seasons ever.
They played better opponents.
They were more dominant over their opposition- in home & away and finals. They won by more. They did it more easily.
They swept all 3 premierships.
They won more games overall.
Hawks didn't lose the best player in the comp?
Played better opponents? Subjective. I say Geelong and played flashed in the pan teams.
Geelong won more easily? Nope. Apart from thee 2007 Grand Final they were down in the third quarter of the other two. Hawthorn apart from the 08 Grand Final were they were down by a point in the first quarter, led at every change in all of their four premierships.
Yep Geelong won more games overall that is the only thing it appears Geelong have done better than Hawthorn but ultimately a meaningless stat come Grand Final, ergo, 2008.
Is 15-20 points with an hour to play game over or not.
Sorry but flash in the pan doesnāt apply when the flash hasnāt ended yet
Great point though st kilda completely disappeared after 2009
Pretty much everyone would? Do you even follow the NBA? 5 chips > 3I didn't say that. You said organisations. It's often the word owed with the Spurs.
But no would suggest they were a better team than the Warriors.
What makes you think that once Geelong of 2011 were home most weeks, they didn't cruise as well but were simply that much better than their opposition that they still put more points on them?
They started slow occasionally. they also had an average half-time differential of +22.5 - for context Hawthorn had an average differential after 1 quarter in 2013 of +9.3.
Hawthorn had an average differential at half-time in 2013 of +14, by the way.
So we put the cue in the rack one quarter later, with a bigger lead.
A 10 second summary of the arguments for each team:
Hawthorn:
They backed up twice.
Brisbane:
They backed up twice.
They travelled.
Geelong:
They were written off, they lost the best player in the comp, then they rose again and played one of the best seasons ever.
They played better opponents.
They were more dominant over their opposition- in home & away and finals. They won by more. They did it more easily.
They swept all 3 premierships.
They won more games overall.
Pretty much everyone would? Do you even follow the NBA? 5 chips > 3
Suggest it says more about the general lack of critical thinking ability across the BigFooty populace than anything else.And yet the vote is Narrowly 4th. not sure I agree with it, but theres a desperation that everyone should see how far superior geelong were (as in the minds of certain posters)
Fair bit of luck (or tenacity) in 2009 GF. Swept? hardly. won one quarter by more than the opponent won 2 quarters
Tend to think the end of the fourth is the most important. But I'm crazy like that.First quarter's aren't important?
Hawks didn't lose the best player in the comp?
Geelong was helped by having a deep midfield. Hawthorn was helped by Gunston developing into his prime just as Buddy left. Neither team felt the effects of their superstar departure.
The difference is the stage of the era each team was in.
Some of Hawthorn's long standing stars were in their primes- Rioli, Roughhead, Lewis, Birchall, weren't that old in 2014. All 24-27. They had younger players like Breust, Gunston, Hill, Shiels, Smith, Stratton.
But in 2011 Geelong was old. Ling, Scarlett, Corey, Chapman, Ottens, Wojinski, Enright, Corey, Hunt, most of their core from 2007 to 2010 was 30ish by 2011. Apart from Selwood, Hawkins and Taylor there was barely anyone under 25 in the team.
They'd lost the prelim comfortably and the feeling was their time had come and gone.
That back drop- getting old- in combination with losing Ablett is what makes 2011 impressive.
They weren't meant to win another one. That's not how the AFL is meant to work. They were meant to drop away. Like Brisbane did. Like Hawthorn eventually did.
Instead, they decimated everybody and won another flag.
19-3 and won every final by over 5 goals.
They broke the system.
Tend to think the end of the fourth is the most important. But I'm crazy like that.
The end of the fourth quarter is just one moment in a game and certainly is no more valuable than a while 25-30 mins of a quarter. There is no end of a game without a first quarter, not even a start.
I watch way more NBA than AFL. You obviously don't. Warriors recently were talked about the greatest ever team with their 4-5 HOF. Spurs were never talked about in this way.
What system was broken?