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

[PJays]

You're setting the time frame at 5 years and claiming Geelong as the better team over it when there's very little difference between the two. Shorten or lenghten the time frame and it clearly becomes Hawthorn.

It becomes Hawthorn once you start talking about clubs, not teams.

Hawthorn had 6 players who continued from 2008 to 2015. That's a quarter of the team.

We can discuss whatever time period you like. But I'm talking teams, not clubs. Club success over longer periods is a very interesting topic, but it's not what I've been discussing.

The OP question was geared towards teams.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Just as one more comment apart from my last reply.

This was a great post- but you’re still missing the forest for the trees, as far as the issue being discussed.

This thread is about which team was greater- Brisbane 2001-2003, Geelong 2007-2011, Hawthorn 2013-2015, or Richmond 2017-2020.

Many people have come into this thread and said “3 peats are best, then 3 in 4, then 3 in 5” and have put Geelong last.

I’m saying – hold on a second! Yes Geelong didn’t 3peat, but Geelong’s 2007-2011 team did something Brisbane’s team and Hawthorn’s team didn’t do, and Richmond’s hasn’t done (unless they win in 2021). Something with the same result (3 flags) but even rarer, and with a huge degree of difficulty in the equalized AFL.

Pointing out that Brisbane and Hawthorn had less changes in their team between their premiership years, doesn’t impact my argument in the slightest. Geelong still had a similar team and core throughout the period. And their achievement was still just as rare and unique, and still had the same degree of difficulty- which is illustrated by the failures of the other teams to win flags over a long period like Geelong did with mostly the same group.

You are failing to pick up on what I think is the clearest trend from Barry’s post.

From the first flag won by these teams, they are roughly replacing 2 players per season, and this is common to the whole four clubs just about equally. There is nothing exceptional about the relationship between the Cats first and last flags in the sequence in this regard. In terms of winning the first and third flags with the same core of players then the Hawks and Lions have clearly achieved that moreso than the Tigers and Cats.

I don’t get where you are with this issue. It seems whatever the Cats have done you are just trying to find ways to define that as being reflective of them being the best of the group.

Maybe answer these questions once and for all for us.

Is it better to have won 3 separate flags with a more similar group or a less similar group of players?

If it is better to have done it with a more similar group, then why is the Hawks 13-15 triple not better than the others in this regard?

If it is better to have done it with a less similar group then why are we not adding the hawks 08 flag to their later haul?

 

[Final Siren]

How?

how is it better or harder?

yes a hattrick is rare but it’s just the fact that the hype and Adrenalin builds that makes it so exciting.

at the end of two overs, one where a guy takes a hat trick and another guy takes 3 in 4-5 balls, no one is going ‘well the guy who took the hat trick obviously bowled better.’

The hattrick analogy doesn't really work because flags are highly correlated, whereas wickets are more like independent events.

But that aside, a hattrick is better & harder than a non-consecutive combination of 3 wickets in an over, because there are fewer possible ways to achieve it.

HATTRICKS (4)
xxx...
.xxx..
..xxx.
...xxx

NON-HATTRICKS (15)
xx.x..
xx..x.
xx...x
x.xx..
x.x.x.
x.x..x
x..xx.
x..x.x
x...xx
.xx.x.
.xx..x
.x.xx.
.x.x.x
..xx.x
..x.xx

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Footy is a physically demanding sport.

The average player has a prime that lasts for 6 or 7 years. It takes 5 or 6 years in the system to consistently reach their potential, until age 23 or 24. By 30 they're declining.

So we have a sport where players have a short time at their peak. And an administrative body that restricts player movement, by disallowing free agency and more recently allowing a restrictive version of it.

Yet a team managed to win flags every 2nd year for 5 years with mostly the same group of players. Whilst finishing 2nd and 3rd in between.

An astounding achievement of longevity. An unmatched achievement of longevity in recent times.

Yet several posters automatically put this team last of the 4 dynasties, because other teams won flags within a shorter time period.

Backing up is impressive. But longevity is just as great.

If the order isn't important, why is 1-2-1-3-1 considered better than 3-2-1-1-1? The first one didn't show more longevity. They just did it in a different sequence, the very thing you are supposedly arguing against.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Astounding take on it. So Richmond were not “premiership standard” in 2018?
I mean really, you only lost to Collingwood in a prelim for your first defence in almost 4 decades so it was just an off night, yeah?

This is almost as entertaining as not being a contender even if you make the grand final, like some other Richmond pinhead suggested.

I'm glad you're getting entertainment out of me. I'm certainly getting entertainment out of you. "Richmond aren't s**t away from the MCG and they know it" is a personal highlight.

You keep giving me gold like that and I'll keep giving you comedy gold like this: "teams that didn't win the premiership aren't premiership standard".

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Oh sorry, I also forgot that Richmond are the only team in the AFL who occasionally have injured players.

My bad.

Thanks for throwing out the context and adding a strawman argument. I never suggested that.

Add something to the thread please.

 

[Roby]

The OP question was geared towards teams.

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

And Hawthorn and Richmond are still the better teams.

 

[Roby]

Thanks for throwing out the context and adding a strawman argument. I never suggested that.

Add something to the thread please.

I find the ignore button helps.

 

[PJays]

A strawman argument.

You do know what this is after all?

Tell me about it.....

 

[Roby]

You are failing to pick up on what I think is the clearest trend from Barry’s post.

From the first flag won by these teams, they are roughly replacing 2 players per season, and this is common to the whole four clubs just about equally. There is nothing exceptional about the relationship between the Cats first and last flags in the sequence in this regard. In terms of winning the first and third flags with the same core of players then the Hawks and Lions have clearly achieved that moreso than the Tigers and Cats.

I don’t get where you are with this issue. It seems whatever the Cats have done you are just trying to find ways to define that as being reflective of them being the best of the group.

Maybe answer these questions once and for all for us.

Is it better to have won 3 separate flags with a more similar group or a less similar group of players?

If it is better to have done it with a more similar group, then why is the Hawks 13-15 triple not better than the others in this regard?

If it is better to have done it with a less similar group then why are we not adding the hawks 08 flag to their later haul?

Pjays also ignored his own rule when 14 premiership players of 2011 team played in 2013.

Yet this supposed great Cats team couldn't even get to a GF that year and the year before were knocked out in the first round.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It becomes Hawthorn once you start talking about clubs, not teams.

Hawthorn had 6 players who continued from 2008 to 2015. That's a quarter of the team.

We can discuss whatever time period you like. But I'm talking teams, not clubs. Club success over longer periods is a very interesting topic, but it's not what I've been discussing.

The OP question was geared towards teams.

Ok, so where do you draw the line though? Only 4 players from Hawthorn's 1983 premiership team remained in 1991. Yet they went 1-2-2-1-2-1-1-5-1

When does one era end and the next one begin? That's the thing about dynasties, if they're good enough and last long enough you will see turnover in players.

If you look at Hawthorn's finals appearances over the last 20 years:

2001: 4th
2002:
2003:
2004:
2005:
2006:
2007: 6th
2008: Premiers
2009:
2010: 7th
2011: 3rd
2012: 2nd
2013: Premiers
2014: Premiers
2015: Premiers
2016: 5th
2017:
2018: 5th
2019:
2020:

When does their era start and where does it end? You're saying it starts in 2011. I'm not real convinced by that.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Why are you all arguing who was best?

None compare to Melbourne, 5 flags in 6 years, 7 grand finals in a row.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Why are you all arguing who was best?

None compare to Melbourne, 5 flags in 6 years, 7 grand finals in a row.

20s Pies vs 50s Demons is the debate for greatest ever

Pies 4 straight
Demons 5/6

Both ended up winning 6/10 if you look a few years down the track. Hawks are definitely 3rd with 5/9.

If Richmond win next year IMO they go to 3rd or 4th all time. Only 50s Melbourne and 20s Collingwood have ever won 4/5. The 80s Hawks won 4/6, slightly worse, but did get the extra flag making it 5/9. You could argue about it at least.

I can't see any other team that can trump 4/5 which includes a threepeat. Geelong could have equalled it if they didn't lose in 2008.

 

[PJays]

Ok, so where do you draw the line though? Only 4 players from Hawthorn's 1983 premiership team remained in 1991. Yet they went 1-2-2-1-2-1-1-5-1

When does one era end and the next one begin? That's the thing about dynasties, if they're good enough and last long enough you will see turnover in players.

If you look at Hawthorn's finals appearances over the last 20 years:

2001: 4th
2002:
2003:
2004:
2005:
2006:
2007: 6th
2008: Premiers
2009:
2010: 7th
2011: 3rd
2012: 2nd
2013: Premiers
2014: Premiers
2015: Premiers
2016: 5th
2017:
2018: 5th
2019:
2020:

When does their era start and where does it end? You're saying it starts in 2011. I'm not real convinced by that.

You're defining dynasty in terms of clubs and generational change. Like RichLeMonde does.

That's fine. I have no argument with that.

I'm not sure if that's the best definition of dynasty or not- but if that's your definition, cool.

Hawthorn's 10 year stretch from 2007 to 2016- or indeed their 8 year stretch from 2008 to 2015 are the greatest 8 and 10 year stretches of any club in the AFL era (1990-). I agree.

I do think Geelong 2004-2020 still makes them the greatest dynasty of the AFL era (if we take a longer term view of dynasty encompassing generational change) despite their one less flag, it's amazing they've contended for basically 17 years.

But 90% of my posts have been making an argument for Geelong as the greatest team, not the greatest club.

 

[Pessimistic]

Well it took almost 69 pages but we have finally through natural selection come up with a clearer ranking.

Hawthorn and Richmond have grouped up, meanwhile Brisbane and Geelong have grouped with Collingwood, St Kilda and West Coast supporters. That's all you really need to know.

By Natural Selection the winners are Hawthorn and Richmond and you can rank those however you like, and the rest can please themselves over the scraps.

I think I voted Brisbane Lions... but theres not that much between them. Next best in that time is eagles and Swans with two..not dynasties

 

[PJays]

Obviously any team that wins 3 flags is great. But if you’re asking me why the Cats are the greatest, I’d say:

• Overall W/L record and percentage.
• Superior finals performance- the only team to be undefeated in their 3 flag years. And the best percentage in finals.
• Beating the best opponents. Collingwood 2011, St Kilda 2009, Hawthorn 2011 being a better top 3 than the top 3 opponents of the other teams. Also, Hawthorn 2008, St.Kilda 2010 and Collingwood 2010 a better top 3 opponents who defeated Geelong during their 5 year stretch, than the opponents who defeated the other teams during their 4 or 5 year successful eras.
• Best individual performances- the 2007 and 2011 grand finals.
• Best finals series- The 2007 and 2011 finals series being two of the greatest overall finals series played by any of these teams. Especially 2011.

I’d say the longevity, the flags 48 months apart is also a reason, but it’s just one more factor amongst many. Not the be-all-and-end-all.

I personally think the Cats longevity with the same group is a more impressive feat within the AFL context, than 3peat or WLWW. But I understand why people believe 3peats are so special.

Some of the arguments for 3 peats are bad. Like, the cricket analogy. The hat trick thing. But there are some great reasons why 3peats are special and I do respect those.

Now to answer your questions.

Is it better to have won 3 separate flags with a more similar group or a less similar group of players?

Which team was greater depends on surrounding factors and circumstances. Why did the players change? How far apart were the flags? Who did they beat? How much did they win by?

If it is better to have done it with a more similar group, then why is the Hawks 13-15 triple not better than the others in this regard?

The Hawks 13-15 flags are inherently superior to Geelong’s 2007-2011 flags in one way (repeating twice), and the Cats 2007-2011 flags are inherently better for a different reason (longevity of a core group and ultimate success with similar team).

If it is better to have done it with a less similar group then why are we not adding the hawks 08 flag to their later haul?

Because it’s not a “less similar group” it’s a fundamentally different group. Geelong had 14 players who played in both 2007 and 2011- with 6 of those 14 players being top 10 in the B&F in both years, and 9 of the 14 being top 10 in the B&F in one year or the other.

Hawthorn had 6 continued players overall. 6 in total! Not even comparable. Hawthorn’s 2008 and 2015 flags are more like Essendon’s 1993 and 2000 flags or Sydney’s 2005 and 2012 flags- totally different teams.

Geelong's effort can be seen as the achievements of a similar team or group with a similar core. Hawthorn's, Essendon's and Sydney's cannot.

Now a question for anyone reading.

Many people have claimed a 3peat is inherently superior. Why? Why is it inherently greater when 1,3,5 has the same outcome- 3 flags- but is rarer- and arguably more difficult within the AFL context?

And don’t give me a hat-trick analogy. That’s an irrelevant analogy for at least a couple of reasons. Firstly with cricket, each ball is fundamentally the same. People can bowl 300 balls in the same match (6 an over, but a hat trick just means consecutive balls in the same match, even if across two overs or even two innings). In AFL, when you have a core group of players. winning a flag gets harder with each passing year as the group ages. After a few years you change the list over and rebuild. That's the typical AFL cycle due to the equalization measures. No one usually stays on top for long. You get 2, 3, 4 chances to win a flag. So being good enough to be on top every 2nd year over a long 5 year period-with a similar team is just as hard, if not harder, than being at the top for 3 years straight.

Secondly batsmen don’t like going out for a golden duck, so they usually play the first ball conservatively. That’s another reason why the context of a hat trick differs to the AFL context.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Obviously any team that wins 3 flags is great. But if you’re asking me why the Cats are the greatest, I’d say:

• Overall W/L record and percentage.
• Superior finals performance- the only team to be undefeated in their 3 flag years. And the best percentage in finals.
• Beating the best opponents. Collingwood 2011, St Kilda 2009, Hawthorn 2011 being a better top 3 than the top 3 opponents of the other teams. Also, Hawthorn 2008, St.Kilda 2010 and Collingwood 2010 a better top 3 opponents who defeated Geelong during their 5 year stretch, than the opponents who defeated the other teams during their 4 or 5 year successful eras.
• Best individual performances- the 2007 and 2011 grand finals.
• Best finals series- The 2007 and 2011 finals series being two of the greatest overall finals series played by any of these teams. Especially 2011.

I’d say the longevity, the flags 48 months apart is also a reason, but it’s just one more factor amongst many. Not the be-all-and-end-all.

I personally think the Cats longevity with the same group is a more impressive feat within the AFL context, than 3peat or WLWW. But I understand why people believe 3peats are so special.

Some of the arguments for 3 peats are bad. Like, the cricket analogy. The hat trick thing. But there are some great reasons why 3peats are special and I do respect those.

Now to answer your questions.



Which team was greater depends on surrounding factors and circumstances. Why did the players change? How far apart were the flags? Who did they beat? How much did they win by?



The Hawks 13-15 flags are inherently superior to Geelong’s 2007-2011 flags in one way (repeating twice), and the Cats 2007-2011 flags are inherently better for a different reason (longevity of a core group and ultimate success with similar team).



Because it’s not a “less similar group” it’s a fundamentally different group. Geelong had 14 players who played in both 2007 and 2011- with 6 of those 14 players being top 10 in the B&F in both years, and 9 of the 14 being top 10 in the B&F in one year or the other.

Hawthorn had 6 continued players overall. 6 in total! Not even comparable. Hawthorn’s 2008 and 2015 flags are more like Essendon’s 1993 and 2000 flags or Sydney’s 2005 and 2012 flags- totally different teams.

Geelong's effort can be seen as the achievements of a similar team or group with a similar core. Hawthorn's, Essendon's and Sydney's cannot.

Now a question for anyone reading.

Many people have claimed a 3peat is inherently superior. Why? Why is it inherently greater when 1,3,5 has the same outcome- 3 flags- but is rarer- and arguably more difficult within the AFL context?

And don’t give me a hat-trick analogy. That’s an irrelevant analogy for at least a couple of reasons. Firstly with cricket, each ball is fundamentally the same. People can bowl 300 balls in the same match (6 an over, but a hat trick just means consecutive balls in the same match, even if across two overs or even two innings). In AFL, when you have a core group of players. winning a flag gets harder with each passing year as the group ages. After a few years you change the list over and rebuild. That's the typical AFL cycle due to the equalization measures. No one usually stays on top for long. You get 2, 3, 4 chances to win a flag. So being good enough to be on top every 2nd year over a long 5 year period-with a similar team is just as hard, if not harder, than being at the top for 3 years straight.

Secondly batsmen don’t like going out for a golden duck, so they usually play the first ball conservatively. That’s another reason why the context of a hat trick differs to the AFL context.

You have me intrigued with this.

For all these teams we can observe a type of continuum where the teams replace about two players per season between premiership years.

So Hawks 3 seasons premiership stretches we see 4 or 5 new players between the first and last.

Extend it a year for Richmond’s 3 flags in 4 seasons, we see 16 players play in both the first and last flag.

Extend it a year for Cats 4 in 5 we see 14 players play in the first and last flag. Extend it over 8 seasons between Hawks 08 and Hawks 15 flags we will expect to see about 14 new players which is roughly right I think.

The whole thing just looks a big continuum with a fairly solid rule repeating over and over, more or less. Your x players top y in best and fairests is just a red herring.

If you are saying the Cats being the best team and Hawks for example not being able to include their 08 flag due to having less players in common you are by definition saying the more players who achieve the flags in common the more you can be defined as an identifiable team. And therefore the more of a dynasty team. According to you. Well, up until the point where Geelong is NOT that team, then your rules seem to change.

This part of your argument is a confusing mess and smacks of complete bias. You would do well to simply remove it from your argument for the Cats if that is what you are wanting to do.

The trouble is, you are seeking to rate Geelong better despite by any telling objective measure the Hawks being at least their equal based on results and by most measures superior, especially having come closer to adding a fourth flag(within 5 years) than the Cats did.

When you are seeking to rate a team with inferior results higher, to be convincing, you need clear reasons, not arbitrarily set rules designed principally to justify your rating.

 

[Roby]

I think I voted Brisbane Lions

Good for you.

 

[PJays]

This part of your argument is a confusing mess and smacks of complete bias. You would do well to simply remove it from your argument for the Cats if that is what you are wanting to do.

When you are seeking to rate a team with inferior results higher, to be convincing, you need clear reasons, not arbitrarily set rules designed principally to justify your rating.

Nothing I've said is inconsistent or difficult to understand.

Right through the 70 odd pages of this thread, I have followed the OP and I've sought to answer the question- who was the greatest team- Brisbane 2001-2003, Geelong 2007-2011, Hawthorn 2013-2015 or Richmond 2017-2020.

A team means a fairly consistent group of players making up most of the 22, with a similar core. That's the most reasonable definition I can think of within this context, and it's the same definition I've used throughout all my posts.

Hawthorn from 2013 to 2015 had a fairly consistent team. From 2008 to 2015 they did not.

If you want to have a different argument, if you want to say "Well Hawthorn is a greater club, they rotated their team through and won 4 flags", great, go ahead. Have that discussion. But please understand that has nothing to do with the question I've been answering on the terms set out by the OP.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Nothing I've said is inconsistent or difficult to understand.

Right through the 70 odd pages of this thread, I have followed the OP and I've sought to answer the question- who was the greatest team- Brisbane 2001-2003, Geelong 2007-2011, Hawthorn 2013-2015 or Richmond 2017-2020.

A team means a fairly consistent group of players making up most of the 22, with a similar core.

Hawthorn from 2013 to 2015 had a fairly consistent team. From 2008 to 2015 they did not.

If you want to have a different argument, if you want to say "Well Hawthorn is a greater club, they rotated their team through and won 4 flags", great, go ahead. Have that discussion. But please understand that has nothing to do with the question I've been answering on the terms set out by the OP.

I would like to still isolate this a bit further.

At what point does a team magically become NOT a fairly consistent group of players and therefore a team? 11 players in common, 12, 1, 22, 18, 14? At what point does it go from being a team in your opinion, to NOT a team for the purposes of this thread? And is it binary?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Obviously any team that wins 3 flags is great. But if you’re asking me why the Cats are the greatest, I’d say:

• Overall W/L record and percentage.
• Superior finals performance- the only team to be undefeated in their 3 flag years. And the best percentage in finals.
• Beating the best opponents. Collingwood 2011, St Kilda 2009, Hawthorn 2011 being a better top 3 than the top 3 opponents of the other teams. Also, Hawthorn 2008, St.Kilda 2010 and Collingwood 2010 a better top 3 opponents who defeated Geelong during their 5 year stretch, than the opponents who defeated the other teams during their 4 or 5 year successful eras.
• Best individual performances- the 2007 and 2011 grand finals.
• Best finals series- The 2007 and 2011 finals series being two of the greatest overall finals series played by any of these teams. Especially 2011.

These are far stronger reasons why Geelong are the best than what you’ve been discussing in recent pages.

Overall W/L record and percentage:

This one absolutely goes to Geelong. 84% over the 5 years is insane. They won 18 home and away games 4 times. That’s more than Hawthorn, Richmond and Brisbane combined. Probably the strongest argument for the Cats along with sheer volume of gun/All Australian players

Superior finals performance- the only team to be undefeated in their 3 flag years. And the best percentage in finals.

This ones very selective and very debatable. Of course if you leave out the years where Geelong lost finals then their finals record will look the best. In the years being discussed Geelong went 12-3, Brisbane 11-2, Hawthorn 11-2, Richmond 10-2. They’re all pretty well the same. Geelong’s is slightly weaker when you consider it’s only 80% compared to 85% and 83% for the others. Geelong had a slightly better percentage due to a few huge wins, but also more close calls and losses than Richmond for example.

Beating the best opponents. Collingwood 2011, St Kilda 2009, Hawthorn 2011 being a better top 3 than the top 3 opponents of the other teams. Also, Hawthorn 2008, St.Kilda 2010 and Collingwood 2010 a better top 3 opponents who defeated Geelong during their 5 year stretch, than the opponents who defeated the other teams during their 4 or 5 year successful eras.

Agreed. Geelong did face the best Grand Final opponents in 2009 and 2011. They also faced the weakest in 2007.

Best individual performances- the 2007 and 2011 grand finals.

Both great performances but Hawthorn 2014 and Richmond 2019 are arguably on par or better. I’m not sure which of those 4 is best.

Best finals series- The 2007 and 2011 finals series being two of the greatest overall finals series played by any of these teams. Especially 2011.

Richmond 2017 is comparable. 07, 11 and 17 are the three contenders for best finals series out of these teams. Richmond 2019 settles for 4th place.

 

[PJays]

I would like to still isolate this a bit further.

At what point does a team magically become NOT a fairly consistent group of players and therefore a team? 11 players in common, 12, 1, 22, 18, 14? At what point does it go from being a team in your opinion, to NOT a team for the purposes of this thread? And is it binary?

Most of the same 22, and most of the same core.

And "core" could be defined as top 10 in the B&F, or more subjectively, you could say the main 10 or 12 players of most importance to the team's success as defined by their fans. eg: not the bottom 8 or 10 who can often be replaced easily by VFL players or emergencies without having a significant effect on the team's structure or the likelihood of winning the game.

That's a reasonable definition of having a similar team or group, wouldn't you say?

Have you got a different suggestion?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Most of the same 22, and most of the same core.

And "core" could be defined as top 10 in the B&F, or more subjectively, you could say the main 10 or 12 players of most importance to the team's success as defined by their fans. eg: not the bottom 8 or 10 who can often be replaced easily by VFL players or emergencies without having a significant effect on the team's structure or the likelihood of winning the game.

That's a reasonable definition of having a similar team or group, wouldn't you say?

Have you got a different suggestion?

Well it is a quite vague definition. But you seem to be arguing this is binary then. And to take one measure, once you drop under “most" of the same 22 from 12 to 11 players in common you seem to be saying the difference between that 11th and 12th player is bigger than the difference between the 12th and for eg the 18th player.

This is palpably wrong. The truth is there are degrees of similarity between one flag team and the next. And it is either meritorious to your argument regarding the best dynasty to satisfy this measure to a greater degree, or it is not.

 

[Pessimistic]

Nothing I've said is inconsistent or difficult to understand.

Right through the 70 odd pages of this thread, I have followed the OP and I've sought to answer the question- who was the greatest team- Brisbane 2001-2003, Geelong 2007-2011, Hawthorn 2013-2015 or Richmond 2017-2020.

A team means a fairly consistent group of players making up most of the 22, with a similar core. That's the most reasonable definition I can think of within this context, and it's the same definition I've used throughout all my posts.

Hawthorn from 2013 to 2015 had a fairly consistent team. From 2008 to 2015 they did not.

If you want to have a different argument, if you want to say "Well Hawthorn is a greater club, they rotated their team through and won 4 flags", great, go ahead. Have that discussion. But please understand that has nothing to do with the question I've been answering on the terms set out by the OP.

And consistently belittled anything which contradicts. Beyond the six hawks with four premierships, Ellis Franklin Young Sewell played 2012 GF. Take out Ellis, Young, add in Guerra and even Bailey who was on the list in 2008 for 2013. Thats 12 in all.
2008-13 is 5 years. How many Cats players are there both 2007 and 2011?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Nothing I've said is inconsistent or difficult to understand.

Right through the 70 odd pages of this thread, I have followed the OP and I've sought to answer the question- who was the greatest team- Brisbane 2001-2003, Geelong 2007-2011, Hawthorn 2013-2015 or Richmond 2017-2020.

A team means a fairly consistent group of players making up most of the 22, with a similar core. That's the most reasonable definition I can think of within this context, and it's the same definition I've used throughout all my posts.

Hawthorn from 2013 to 2015 had a fairly consistent team. From 2008 to 2015 they did not.

If you want to have a different argument, if you want to say "Well Hawthorn is a greater club, they rotated their team through and won 4 flags", great, go ahead. Have that discussion. But please understand that has nothing to do with the question I've been answering on the terms set out by the OP.

Hasn’t he more or less asked which is the greatest dynasty? And set out no terms beyond that? Or am I missing something?