Sure, okay. Laugh away. Great conversing with you.
Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers
- Thread starter Rasha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Sure, okay. Laugh away. Great conversing with you.
Pound for pound if all the teams mentioned above played against each other at their peak, Geelong would come out in front, with Richmond coming in last place. Obviously I’ll be labelled as biased, but there’s valid arguments to back up my stance, vice versa as well. What I’m sure of is Richmond wouldn’t get within 4 goals of all the other fore mentioned teams at their peak
How can you be sure of that?
That's why i ask, when does it start and when does it finish?
If someone dominates in between, then is it over?
If that is the case, then Geelong and Richimond(yet) don't have a case to argue.
And that's fine, as long as they do have their own terms of reference upon which they base their decision.
But we have people in this thread belittling others (e.g. calling them salty or brainless) if someone disagrees with their view, without first having defined their own personal terms of reference.
This line only makes sense as an insult if you believe we’ve underachieved with this list. After dominating the league for the best part of 4 years and winning 3 premierships, maybe our period of dominance is close to over. Damn. Given in 2016 I would’ve given my left arm to see Richmond win a single final and in the 4 years since I’ve seen us win 10 of them, including 3 premierships, I’m personally pretty content with what we’ve done. Of course I’d prefer to win another flag, but if that’s it for now, so be it.
As an example I could say ‘You get the sense Collingwood’s clock is ticking’ - implying they might have to rebuild soon and that would be bad given they haven’t won a flag with their current list.
If Richmond doesn’t win another flag with this list, would you think we’ve underperformed and should’ve won 4? Surely that means you believe we are the best of the lot since 4 flags in 5/6 years would definitely be the best stretch of the 4.
For me if Richmond win it next year, there is no argument, they jump ahead of the other 3.
And for the record, i think it's stupid comparing the teams they played, a dynasty is a dynasty.
Also rules, you could argue Brisbane had it harder, well cry me a river, they were the rules.
Trahanas22
Senior List
- Oct 10, 2017
- 153
- 338
- AFL Club
- Richmond
St Kilda’s clock is counting geological time, centuries rather than seconds. Last time it ticked was in 1966...
‘you just can’t say that. It’s as you say, opinion. Great teams have great forwards and forward lines and although geelong scored heavily at times, the forward lines weren’t recognised as complete. The other lines more than made up for that though.
in such an imaginary finals contest, the cats would be the most concerned about restricting the other teams scoring.
Last edited:
Elton Johns Wig
Premiership Ruckman
- Moderator
- #1,810
Nah, I'm very secure. I'm 49 years old, and after nearly a lifetime of s**t, I've seen 3 flags. I coild die tomorrow, happy and content.
No, the polls didn't have Trump winning.
It is amongst the more bizarre things raised on this thread that Richmond and Hawthorn fans are insecure. One, Hawthorn, is without doubt the most successful club in the last 50 years, 40 years, 30 years, 20 years and possibly 10 years. The other, Richmond has won three of the most recent four flags and looks well positioned to go on with the job, with a list brimming with young talent. I mean, some of us may be insecure for other reasons, but not because we support the Hawks or Tigers. Weird one that.
- Aug 23, 2011
- 19,104
- 62,068
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Grand Finals at the Gabba
Dude you tried to argue that Geelong are clearly the most dominant in finals, despite having the worst win-loss ratio of the 4 clubs in the discussion.
- Aug 23, 2011
- 19,104
- 62,068
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Grand Finals at the Gabba
Richmond did beat the Hawks team in back to back games by 62 and 41 points when Hawthorn were at their peak. And that’s when Richmond were average.
Richmond lost games to mediocre and even trash opponents. So did Brisbane. So did Geelong.
All 4 teams would be capable of beating the others on their day. Richmond’s high pressure game style stacks up well against Geelong too. They’re like a far superior version of the Saints and Pies teams that gave Geelong trouble. Teams that * around and over possess the ball in the backline get eaten alive by Richmond. Over possession by handball was the main criticism of Geelong in that era, along with poor goalkicking.
I see it is important to you that people who disagree with you are insecure. Ok, I will try for you.
The fact Geelong lost far fewer games over the period being discussed therefore means they lost to far fewer mediocre opponents, correct?
I'm aware analysis isn't a strength of yours, and it's probably not in your best interests to provide facts to support your comments, so I've taken the liberty to do it for you...
For the purpose of this exercise, I'll define 'mediocre teams' as 'teams to have missed the finals in the specific season'. Now I'm sure you'll probably have some weird ass alternative definition to support your comment, but I think my definition is quite logical and reasonable.
So the respective records for each club are as follows:
Geelong, over the 5 year stretch between 2007 and 2011, lost 2 games to mediocre teams:
2007 - Western Bulldogs (12th)
2010 - Adelaide (11th)
Brisbane, over their 4 year stretch between 2001 and 2004, lost 3 games to mediocre teams:
2001 - Doggies (10th)
2003 - Saints (11th)
2004 - Freo (9th)
Hawthorn, over their 4 year stretch, lost 5 games to mediocre teams:
2012: Richmond (12th)
2015: Essendon (15th), Port (9th), GWS (11th), Port (9th)
Richmond, over their 4 year stretch between 2017 and 2020, have lost 9 games to mediocre teams:
2017: Doggies (10th), Freo (14th), Saints (11th)
2018: Adelaide (12th), Port (10th)
2019: North (12th), Adelaide (11th)
2020: Hawthorn (15th), GWS (10th)
So there is yet another criteria that has Geelong at #1 (clearly, given they have the fewest losses to mediocre teams, over a span of an additional season in comparison to the other teams), with Richmond clearly in 4th position.
If I can put it another way - in Richmond's BEST season, they lost as many home and away games to mediocre teams as Geelong did over their entire 5 season stretch...
'Far Superior'?
Nah. I'd back the 2009/2010 Saints and the 2010/2011 Pies over the 2017-20 Richmond side.
Who said it was important?I see it is important to you that people who disagree with you are insecure. Ok, I will try for you.
It's simply an observation.
If I observe that the sky is blue, does it mean it is important for me that the sky be blue?
Trahanas22
Senior List
- Oct 10, 2017
- 153
- 338
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Yeah mate, we are living a boring life, not all of us can be a jet setter like you! Can I assume you typed this in the comfort of your own private Gulfstream?
Clearly insecure indeed, both us and Hawthorn don’t have great and competent leaders like Eddie, to properly manage and guide us in these difficult times. And Buckley. We don’t have Buckley. What an excellent coach, way better than Clarkson and Hardwick. And an even better tennis player from what I hear! Serve and volley, in and out!
Hawthorn fans especially have great reasons to be really insecure. What has their team really achieved, after all, to make them feel confident about the future? Apart, as another Richmond supporter already said, from being the best team or “dynasty” the last decade, in the 21st century, in the AFL era and-lastly- in modern VFL and AFL eras combined as well.
The Hawks have won thirteen premierhips, all of them after 1960. During the same period, the Magpies have won just two. Just in case you forgot and you need reminding. In the last six decades Hawthorn have won at least one premiership per decade. In three of these decades, they won at least three cups. No one comes close to that. No one. That is a proper dynasty my friend, the rest is fluff! Yeah, they are trembling with fear about the future!
As for Richmond, I admit that the lack of consistency and continuity when it comes to our successful periods does worry me a little bit. We don’t have the luxury Collingwood have winning- on average- a preliminarship every five years. Lagging behind the Magpies in preliminarships is eating us alive!
Since 1960, the magpies have won fourteen preliminarships. Richmond only ten. I suppose it is sort of a small consolation that we have also won eight premierships. The magpies only two. Two out of fourteen for the Pies, a 14% winning percentage in grand finals. One in seven! Let me re-type this, because it is so enjoyable! ONE IN SEVEN! Eight out of ten for the Tigers, an 80% winning percentage! Hawthorn have also won eight of their last ten grand finals. Just in case you forgot and you need reminding.
Richmond now have surpassed Collingwood in AFL premierships as well, three to two. Just in case you forgot etc...
So, to make a long story even longer, in order to alley our childish-really- anxiety and Magpie-phobia, we are concentrating on our little clock that your St Kilda friend also heard ticking. He cannot hear his own club’s clock, it last ticked in 1966, so he is reduced to hearing ours! Our club psychologist is very strict with us! Stop worrying about preliminarships, she keeps saying! Just listen to the premiership clock, she insists! It is counting down the continuous days since Richmond have been the reigning premiers. It currently stands on day 435...
Just out of curiosity, do you have a preliminarship clock at Collingwood? I know you don’t have a premiership clock because you hardly need it! Unless you have a hibernating one, like St Kilda’s, which comes into life only when necessary. These things can keep working for hundreds or even thousands of years, very handy indeed, especially for the Saints! They way they are going, winning a premiership per century, they will need more than a millennium to catch up with Richmond and Hawthorn. We assume a sleeping beauty scenario here, where both the Tigers and the Hawks become victims of the bad queen, fall into a cryogenic sleep and don’t win a premiership for the next 1,200 years!
Guess who will still be your president, when we wake up...
Hmmm, so another insecure person who lives vicariously through the achievements of the football team they support and completely missed my point and my response to a similar assertion from another poster...
But go ahead, any chance of discussing the thread topic?
It must be important to you as you have made the observation despite having no solid knowledge of the insecurity or otherwise of the people you are commenting about.
Your statement is no more one of saying the sky is blue than it is one of saying that people describing the sky as blue are therefore insecure….
In debating they might call that an ad hominem attack. It is seen as a poor debating technique.
OK so the Richmond dynasty is now strong enough at least to allow its supporters to to live vicariously through its achievements.
Sounds like we are swaying you.
Welcome to Tiger heaven Fadgey Wadgey.
Fadge: "'Far Superior’? Nah. I'd back the 2009/2010 Saints and the 2010/2011 Pies over the 2017-20 Richmond side."
Say that again?
Fadge says the no Premiership Saints and one Premiership Pies are better than the triple Premiership Tigers….ok let’s maybe start a new poll.
Which is the greatest dynasty:
StKilda 2009-10
Collingwood 2010-11
Richmond 2017-20
?
———————————
You are pretty good at this Fadgey. You have just managed to give the fact that you would back them as the solitary reason that St Kilda 9/10 and Collingwood 10/11 are better than Richmond 2017-20.
Fadge is backing Saints and Pies, ergo, what chance do the Tigers have? Snowflakes in hell, obviously.
So by Fadge’s reckoning let us see.
Richmond win 3 Grand Finals by 48, 89, 38(adjusted for reduced time games.)
48 + 89 + 38 = 175/3 = 58.33 better than the next best team on average when put to the ultimate test.
2009 Grand Final Saints lose by 12 points.
2010 Grand Final Saints and Pies draw.
2011 Grand Final Pies lose by 38 points.
-12 + 0 + -38 = -50/3 = -16.66 is the average deficit to the competition’s best recorded by those two teams when put to the ultimate test in the period in question.
So 58.33 + 16.66 = 75 points. But then we have to add the Fadge margin. Every great punter needs to have identified an edge in order to bet. Normally in AFL matches this will be around 10 points AT LEAST.
So Richmond > the comp 2017-2020 = 58.33 points.
Collingwood/St Kilda < the best of 2009/2011 = 16.66 points.
Then we add the Fadge margin that Saints and Pies were better than the Tigers of let’s say 10 points.
58.33 + 16.66 + 10 = 85 points.
So Fadge is positing the AFL standard has dropped by AT LEAST 85 points between the 2009-11 era and the 2017-2020 era.
So by Fadge’s reckoning Gold Coast 2010(bottom with a % in the 50’s) and Port Adelaide(second bottom with a % in the 60’s) would at the very least reach the Preliminary Finals in 2020.
Gold Coast unlucky to be born into the wrong era, obviously.
Last edited:
What a fool.Fadge: "'Far Superior’? Nah. I'd back the 2009/2010 Saints and the 2010/2011 Pies over the 2017-20 Richmond side."
Say that again?
Fadge says the no Premiership Saints and one Premiership Pies are better than the triple Premiership Tigers….ok let’s maybe start a new poll.
Which is the greatest dynasty:
StKilda 2009-10
Collingwood 2010-11
Richmond 2017-20
?
———————————
You are pretty good at this Fadgey. You have just managed to give the fact that you would back them as the solitary reason that St Kilda 9/10 and Collingwood 10/11 are better than Richmond 2017-20.
Fadge is backing Saints and Pies, ergo, what chance do the Tigers have? Snowflakes in hell, obviously.
So by Fadge’s reckoning let us see.
Richmond win 3 Grand Finals by 48, 89, 38(adjusted for reduced time games.)
48 + 89 + 38 = 175/3 = 58.33 better than the next best team on average when put to the ultimate test.
2009 Grand Final Saints lose by 12 points.
2010 Grand Final Saints and Pies draw.
2011 Grand Final Pies lose by 38 points.
-12 + 0 + -38 = -50/3 = -16.66 is the average deficit to the competition’s best recorded by those two teams when put to the ultimate test in the period in question.
So 58.33 + 16.66 = 75 points. But then we have to add the Fadge margin. Every great punter needs to have identified an edge in order to bet. Normally in AFL matches this will be around 10 points AT LEAST.
So Richmond > the comp 2017-2020 = 58.33 points.
Collingwood/St Kilda < the best of 2009/2011 = 16.66 points.
Then we add the Fadge margin that Saints and Pies were better than the Tigers of let’s say 10 points.
58.33 + 16.66 + 10 = 85 points.
So Fadge is positing the AFL standard has dropped by AT LEAST 85 points between the 2009-11 era and the 2017-2020 era.
So by Fadge’s reckoning Gold Coast 2010(bottom with a % in the 50’s) and Port Adelaide(second bottom with a % in the 60’s) would at the very least reach the Preliminary Finals in 2020.
Gold Coast unlucky to be born into the wrong era, obviously.
I said 'I'd back the Saints and Pies team ahead of the current Richmond team'.
Only the intellectually challenged would take the leap that you have, and to be honest, I kind of expected it.
You didn't disappoint.
Let me clarify.
For the many reasons I and many others have outlined in this thread, I rate Geelong well ahead of Richmond.
The fact that both Collingwood and St Kilda surpassed Geelong for brief periods during that 2007 to 2011 period, I would therefore consider those teams to have the measure of the current day Richmond side.
Did either of those teams achieve more? Obviously not. But it doesn't mean that when Collingwood were playing at their absolute best - late 2010 to mid 2011 - their brand of football wouldn't account for the best that the Richmond side could offer during their 2017 to 2020 period.
In some quarters, Essendon's 2000 season is regarded as the best ever, and the stats back that up. Is it unreasonable to also dare to suggest that that team would also beat the best that this current Richmond side could offer?
Does that dumb it down enough for you?!?
(I must say, it was pleasing to see you use numbers in an attempt to justify your view, despite the simplicity of the argument you are trying to make. The whole rationale for the point I made, and others have made in this thread, is that Geelong are ahead of Richmond, and the Collingwood and Saints teams of that era are ahead of any competition Richmond has had over the past 4 seasons).
Last edited:
I will ignore your comments about me and simply focus on your outlined position again. But I will note you won’t want to be whingeing about the conduct of others as you have if that is your level of conduct.
You have repeated the same claim more or less.
1. 'Far Superior'?
Nah. I'd back the 2009/2010 Saints and the 2010/2011 Pies over the 2017-20 Richmond side.
2. Did either of those teams achieve more? Obviously not. But it doesn't mean that when Collingwood were playing at their absolute best - late 2010 to mid 2011 - their brand of football wouldn't account for the best that the Richmond side could offer during their 2017 to 2020 period.
The "best that the Richmond side could offer" in the years you mentioned is three Grand Final wins averaging 58 point victories. The average of all other Grand Final margins in the AFL era is 22 points. So as Grand Final winners go, on average, Richmond 2017, 19-20 is objectively about 6 goals ahead of the average Grand Final winner.
So something about your position isn’t adding up real good. Perhaps for one three year period 2009-11, and ONLY that period the whole top end of the AFL was elevated about 10-15 goals above AFL era average? Because that is where you have it. The trouble with this my friend is it places the 2010 Tigers on about the level of the 2020 Tigers.
And, you know, any Richmond fan will tell you, that is pretty unlikely….You haven’t addressed my point that given Richmond have now won three Grand Finals in this era by big margins, you saying the Pies and Saints of the 2009-11 era have their measure is essentially the same as saying the AFL standard has deteriorated by about 14 goals over the last ten years.
To show how ludicrous that is I have mentioned it puts Gold Coast in its first year somewhere around the standard of the current Geelong side.
Or perhaps you don’t think Grand Finals are the ultimate test of where a team sits in relation to the competition at any given point? Or perhaps you think Richmond’s now trio of big Grand Final wins are anomalies?
It must be one of these things to make you think St Kilda and Collingwood 2009-11 are better than the current Richmond team.
Or perhaps you have it wrong.
Fadge Edit: I need to clarify another point in your argument. You seem now(and previously?)to be saying that Geelong(2007-11) were better than Richmond 2017-2020 because their big game opposition were better than Richmond’s big game opposition, and Geelong overall had the better of them. And the big game opposition(Saints and Pies) were better because Geelong were better than Richmond and the Saints and Pies at times surpassed the Cats in that era. Is that a fair representation of your argument?
Last edited:
For the third and last time, I ask you to consider the quality of opposition Richmond have played in finals over the past 4 seasons.I will ignore your comments about me and simply focus on your outlined position again. But I will note you won’t want to be whingeing about the conduct of others as you have if that is your level of conduct.
You have repeated the same claim more or less.
1. 'Far Superior'?
Nah. I'd back the 2009/2010 Saints and the 2010/2011 Pies over the 2017-20 Richmond side.
2. Did either of those teams achieve more? Obviously not. But it doesn't mean that when Collingwood were playing at their absolute best - late 2010 to mid 2011 - their brand of football wouldn't account for the best that the Richmond side could offer during their 2017 to 2020 period.
The "best that the Richmond side could offer" in the years you mentioned is three Grand Final wins averaging 58 point victories. The average of all other Grand Final margins in the AFL era is 22 points. So as Grand Final winners go, on average, Richmond 2017, 19-20 is objectively about 6 goals ahead of the average Grand Final winner.
So something about your position isn’t adding up real good. Perhaps for one three year period 2009-11, and ONLY that period the whole top end of the AFL was elevated about 10-15 goals above AFL era average? Because that is where you have it. The trouble with this my friend is it places the 2010 Tigers on about the level of the 2020 Tigers.
You haven’t addressed my point that given Richmond have now won three Grand Finals in this era by big margins, you saying the Pies and Saints of the 2009-11 era have their measure is essentially the same as saying the AFL standard has deteriorated by about 14 goals over the last ten years.
To show how ludicrous that is I have mentioned it puts Gold Coast in its first year somewhere around the standard of the current Geelong side.
Or perhaps you don’t think Grand Finals are the ultimate test of where a team sits in relation to the competition at any given point? Or perhaps you think Richmond’s now trio of big Grand Final wins are anomalies?
It must be one of these things to make you think St Kilda and Collingwood 2009-11 are better than the current Richmond team.
Or perhaps you have it wrong.
Who is the best team Richmond has played between 2017 and 2020, and where will they go down in history?
Richmond have been beaten twice in finals, once by Collingwood in 2018, and their second loss against Brisbane this year.
Collingwood 2010/11 would absolutely belt the living suitcases out of our 2018 team.
Brisbane have won one solitary final after returning to the top 8 over the past two seasons.
Sporting contests work like this - the more difficult the opponent, the less you will likely beat them by (if you beat them at all).
To include Gold Coast in the discussion, as you have done twice now, just don't waste people's time. Do I really have to explain the magnitude of the gap between the top couple of teams and the next best in the competition at that time, let alone a team in it's first season in the competition?
- Status
