Here's the thing.
Hawthorn's best 3 year period was greater than Geelong's best 3 year period. So was Brisbane's.
But Geelong's best 5 year period was greater than the best 5 year period produced by any others.
Doesn't that actually make them a better team?
The longer you perform at a very high level, the more impressive you are. Usually. This is a fairly well established principle of human performance, period. Business, investing, entertainment, the arts, sport... whatever. Anyone can be a "flash in the pan" or a "one hit wonder".
See, I could argue the greatest half of the 2017 season belonged to St.Kilda. We kicked 14.8 to 1.4 against the premier. I was there. It was glorious! For a brief, fleeting moment...
But it was a half of footy. Obviously St.Kilda didn't play like that very often, or for long, otherwise we would've won the flag. Or at least made finals!
Similarly, Essendon of 2000 played a greater season than anyone in this discussion. (Yes, perhaps even greater than Geelong of 2011!).
All these teams were great for 4 or 5 years. But Geelong bookended a 5 year period with two of the greatest flags of the AFL era.
In my view, if they'd won 08 against Hawthorn instead of losing, but then been comfortably beaten by Collingwood in 2011.... they'd be less impressive, not more impressive.
But they'd have a 3 peat.
See the whole "3 peat" vs "3 in 5" is a furphy. A distraction. What matters is the flags that were actually won, and the games that were actually played. And what actually happened.
The idea that a flag is automatically greater, simply and purely because the winner won a flag 12 months earlier (or the 2 preceding years) without any regard for any other factors or a consideration of any other surrounding circumstances whatsoever, is just irrational.
Hawthorn's best 3 year period was greater than Geelong's best 3 year period. So was Brisbane's.
But Geelong's best 5 year period was greater than the best 5 year period produced by any others.
Doesn't that actually make them a better team?
The longer you perform at a very high level, the more impressive you are. Usually. This is a fairly well established principle of human performance, period. Business, investing, entertainment, the arts, sport... whatever. Anyone can be a "flash in the pan" or a "one hit wonder".
See, I could argue the greatest half of the 2017 season belonged to St.Kilda. We kicked 14.8 to 1.4 against the premier. I was there. It was glorious! For a brief, fleeting moment...
But it was a half of footy. Obviously St.Kilda didn't play like that very often, or for long, otherwise we would've won the flag. Or at least made finals!
Similarly, Essendon of 2000 played a greater season than anyone in this discussion. (Yes, perhaps even greater than Geelong of 2011!).
All these teams were great for 4 or 5 years. But Geelong bookended a 5 year period with two of the greatest flags of the AFL era.
In my view, if they'd won 08 against Hawthorn instead of losing, but then been comfortably beaten by Collingwood in 2011.... they'd be less impressive, not more impressive.
But they'd have a 3 peat.
See the whole "3 peat" vs "3 in 5" is a furphy. A distraction. What matters is the flags that were actually won, and the games that were actually played. And what actually happened.
The idea that a flag is automatically greater, simply and purely because the winner won a flag 12 months earlier (or the 2 preceding years) without any regard for any other factors or a consideration of any other surrounding circumstances whatsoever, is just irrational.