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

[Fadge]

Margins are misleading. St.Kilda had 49 to 34 inside 50's and 12 goals to 7 vs Collingwood (15-7, 122%). At no stage in the 2nd half was the result in doubt with St.Kilda leading by 20-30 throughout. Riewoldt alone (5 goals) kicked almost as many as Collingwood. A convincing win.

Fully agree with this. Collingwood were never in the hunt and completely outclassed in the 2009 Preliminary Final.

And if we use Roby's Time machine theory, Collingwood in 2009 were possibly the best losing Preliminary Finalist in the history of the game based on what they went on to do in 2010 and 2011.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Some icing on the cake for one of Richmond's wooden spoon years...

Richmond were the weakest team in the weakest year in the history of the AFL.

2007 draft : Cotchin and Rance


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Final Siren]

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.

What's irrational to me is how you and Fadge never disagree with each other, even when one of you says something the other thinks isn't true. For example, when Fadge posts that Collingwood 2002-2003 were better than Richmond 2019-2020, there's not a peep out of you - even though I'm pretty sure you don't buy that. When you post that Geelong 2011 were far and away the best team of that year, Fadge is silent, even though I'm pretty sure Fadge believes Collingwood were right up there. So you won't criticize the other even when you think they're wrong, but at the same time, you whack everyone else for being blinkered and irrational.

 

[PJays]

What's irrational to me is how you and Fadge never disagree with each other, even when one of you says something the other thinks isn't true. For example, when Fadge posts that Collingwood 2002-2003 were better than Richmond 2019-2020, there's not a peep out of you - even though I'm pretty sure you don't buy that.

I suspect that was a bit of a joke; the subtext being that if he can even make that claim with a straight face, then it casts great doubt on Richmond's claims in this thread. It's true Collingwood pushed Brisbane in a tight GF for 4 quarters, and won a QF against them, and Brisbane are considered easily the greatest of the 21st century (judging by this thread).

For mine, the current Richmond are obviously much better than 02-03 Collingwood.

But I'm here to argue substantive points; I don't have time to argue every single minor point I disagree with. If I do argue hard on a minor point, it'll be because I'm trying to close the door on a final subpoint when I think I've already won the others. Or when I'm discussing with somebody who's obstinately refusing to see reason, it can be necessary going into great detail.

There's a couple of posters here that I've been debating non-stop, they keep me busy enough!

Fadge clearly has a deep seated dislike for Richmond, but I'm not here to adjudicate a p!ssing contest between supporters of opposing clubs, I'm here to discuss the 4 great teams and analyse the thread question from different angles....

When you post that Geelong 2011 were far and away the best team of that year, Fadge is silent, even though I'm pretty sure Fadge believes Collingwood were right up there. So you won't criticize the other even when you think they're wrong, but at the same time, you whack everyone else for being blinkered and irrational.

Fadge knows Geelong were comfortably the best team of 2011- they went 3-0 against Collingwood. Even if one of those was a dead rubber, it was still a 96 point win. Even if Collingwood had an injury niggle in the Grand Final, Geelong still ran away with the game. I'm fairly sure Fadge hugely respects a team who comprehensively beat his team on their home ground a couple of times- the only team over 2010 and 2011 to manage that.

One reason Geelong went 19-3 and Collingwood went 20-2 was because Geelong had to play 17-5 West Coast in Perth (West Coast who lost one game at home all year).

Even if Fadge thinks the gap between Geelong and Collingwood in 2011 was relatively small, it wouldn't diminish the greatness of that Geelong team. So I suspect Fadge, like me, has bigger fish to fry and isn't interested in relatively unimportant subpoints.

For the record, I did disagree with him yesterday when he claimed North were unequivocally the greatest team of the 90's, by suggesting West Coast were their equals.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Some icing on the cake for one of Richmond's wooden spoon years...

Richmond were the weakest team in the weakest year in the history of the AFL.

We didn't even get the #1 pick. That was the point where our luck changed. Carlton tanked and chose Kreuzer and the path was set.

 

[HTT]

Didn't Noidnadroj make a comment in this thread, not too long ago, overrating the greatness of the 2016 Dogs?

2007 can't have been that weak a year- the only year between 2004 and 2011 that St.Kilda missed the finals.

IIRC they were struggling with implementing Lyon’s game plan, after the one dimensional, bomb-and-run Thomas era.

Harvey, Thompson and Gehrig were getting older, Hamill's career was over. Hudghton and Maguire were stifled by injuries.

We needed to refresh and add more role players, which happened the next year.

But we still had loads of guns in their primes, and missed the finals. No season is truly that much weaker than any other.

But there are years where the main flag competitors are better than most years. That's what Geelong faced from 2008-2011. Especially 2011.

By that reckoning 2006 and 2016 must have been two of the strongest years on record

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You and your magic wand again!

I forgot, in your world losing Qualifying Finals are irrelevant. Losing a final does nothing to diminish a team's finals record!

Margins are misleading. St.Kilda had 49 to 34 inside 50's and 12 goals to 7 vs Collingwood (15-7, 122%). At no stage in the 2nd half was the result in doubt with St.Kilda leading by 20-30 throughout. Riewoldt alone (5 goals) kicked almost as many as Collingwood. A convincing win.

2-0 > 2-1

We can debate specifics but ultimately we're asking a big picture question here "Who were the toughest GF opponents?"

Ask most people who they'd rather play in a Grand Final:

1. A team who was virtually undefeated all season (except a dead rubber or 2) and then undefeated in finals?

Or

2. A team who lost many games during the season, then was also undefeated in finals but with more convincing overall wins than team 1?

3. A team who lost many games during the season, then lost a finals game too, then had more convincing finals wins in their two subsequent winning finals, compared to the two wins of team 1?

Almost anyone would rather play team 2 or 3 and avoid team 1.

St.Kilda and Collingwood were seen at the time, as stronger than average GF teams.

In fact, heading into the 2009 and 2011 GF's, those 2 GF matchups were seen as tougher GF games- with collectively 2 stronger teams- than most, if not all, subsequent Grand Finals.

Everyone who's followed footy long term knows this is true.

You can’t make your earlier hogwash correct by producing an even bigger load of hogwash.

If you want to be a good debater you need to retract statements that are shown to be incorrect, rather than deflect onto another issue. These were your statements:

"Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.”

"St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers."

Now let’s go one at a time. "Most Premiers don’t have a "strong finals series” before the GF either"……my list of 14 Premiers of the last 21 who definitely had strong finals series does not include any teams who lost a final. You are trying to use a red herring argument to avoid discussing the fact your statement is wrong. The weakest looking finals any of those 14 teams played were efforts like 0.10 wins against the top home and away team. Or Geelong’s 2.2 win in 2009 over a Bulldogs team that were clearly at least equal to the second best team in the finals, your super loser, the Saints. If you think any of the 14 I bolded didn’t have strong finals series leading to the Grand Final, then let’s hear from you which ones, and why. Or, more properly, just concede your statement was wrong.

Your second statement that StKilda09 and Collingwood 11 had better finals series, before the Grand Final, than many Premiers is vague. How many is “many?" They did not have "better finals series before the Grand Final" than any of the 16 Premiers that won their QF, that is not even debatable.

So for your statement to hold any credibility would rely on BOTH your two teams having had better finals series prior to the GF than all of the 5 Premiers who lost their QF, AND 5 of 21 Premiers qualifying as “many.” Which it doesn’t.

But let’s look at some of the Premiers who lost their QF’s. For a start there is no way they had a better finals series than Eagles 06, despite the Eagles losing a home QF to the their eventual Runner-Up Swans by 1 point. The Eagles had 4 more scoring shots than the Swans in this match. Eagles then went on to have two very strong wins and all three of their finals performances prior to the Grand Final were superior in reality to all four performances produced by your two teams.

So we are down to four. You are also stretching it plenty to say both their finals series were better than Swans 05, whose only loss was by 4 points in Perth against their eventual runner-up the Eagles.

You’d be left arguing that their finals form leading into the GF was better in reality than Hawks 15, Tigers 20 and Lions 03. All three of those teams had two wins at least as good as the best win produced by your two teams, all things considered, venue, margin, opponent.

So you are stretching it miles to say your second statement is not wrong. But the first statement is unarguably wrong. You should just concede these points or at least say you worded them poorly or something because you made statements that are incorrect.

---------------------------------------------

On the bigger question as to who were the tougher Grand Final opponents faced by the dynasty teams, the lead up form of the teams is very material to this question. It is why I backed the Cats in 09 and 11 to win these Grand Finals. It doesn’t matter how good those teams were in the home and away season if they turn up to the finals series well below their home and away level, and both teams clearly did. Neither Saints nor Pies were even clearly the second best performers in their respective finals series. Both were in reality very fortunate to overcome their Preliminary Final opponents.

If these teams were such good Grand Final opponents they would have had better finals series. All three of each of their finals were way below the dominant level of their home and away seasons. So it was not like it was a one match anomaly, which the Premiers who lost their QF’s clearly showed those games to be.

Your claim that Geelong played the best two Grand Final opponents of the 13 dynasty years looks right if you consider only home and away form and ignore finals form, I happily concede that. But it looks woefully wrong when you consider the finals form, they are not even in the top 8 of the 13 beaten Grand Finalists in that regard. And it is arguable where they sit in the bottom 5, alongside with GWS19, Bombers01, Port07(who were probably clearly above them.)

From where I sit, the Pies11 team that turned up to that GF would have been comfortably beaten by any other of the dynasty Premiers, utterly crushed by some. The Saints09 team that appeared in that Grand Final would, I think, have been competitive in other Grand Finals, but there is absolutely zero in their finals form that would make any one of the other dynasty teams fear playing them in a Grand Final. Most of the other dynasty teams beat opponents with clearly better finals form.

 

[PJays]

You can’t make your earlier hogwash correct by producing an even bigger load of hogwash.

If you want to be a good debater you need to retract statements that are shown to be incorrect, rather than deflect onto another issue. These were your statements:

"Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.”

"St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers."

Now let’s go one at a time. "Most Premiers don’t have a "strong finals series” before the GF either"……my list of 14 Premiers of the last 21 who definitely had strong finals series does not include any teams who lost a final. You are trying to use a red herring argument to avoid discussing the fact your statement is wrong. The weakest looking finals any of those 14 teams played were efforts like 0.10 wins against the top home and away team. Or Geelong’s 2.2 win in 2009 over a Bulldogs team that were clearly at least equal to the second best team in the finals, your super loser, the Saints. If you think any of the 14 I bolded didn’t have strong finals series leading to the Grand Final, then let’s hear from you which ones, and why. Or, more properly, just concede your statement was wrong.

Your second statement that StKilda09 and Collingwood 11 had better finals series, before the Grand Final, than many Premiers is vague. How many is “many?" They did not have "better finals series before the Grand Final" than any of the 16 Premiers that won their QF, that is not even debatable.

So for your statement to hold any credibility would rely on BOTH your two teams having had better finals series prior to the GF than all of the 5 Premiers who lost their QF, AND 5 of 21 Premiers qualifying as “many.” Which it doesn’t.

But let’s look at some of the Premiers who lost their QF’s. For a start there is no way they had a better finals series than Eagles 06, despite the Eagles losing a home QF to the their eventual Runner-Up Swans by 1 point. The Eagles had 4 more scoring shots than the Swans in this match. Eagles then went on to have two very strong wins and all three of their finals performances prior to the Grand Final were superior in reality to all four performances produced by your two teams.

So we are down to four. You are also stretching it plenty to say both their finals series were better than Swans 05, whose only loss was by 4 points in Perth against their eventual runner-up the Eagles.

You’d be left arguing that their finals form leading into the GF was better in reality than Hawks 15, Tigers 20 and Lions 03. All three of those teams had two wins at least as good as the best win produced by your two teams, all things considered, venue, margin, opponent.

So you are stretching it miles to say your second statement is not wrong. But the first statement is unarguably wrong. You should just concede these points or at least say you worded them poorly or something because you made statements that are incorrect.

---------------------------------------------

On the bigger question as to who were the tougher Grand Final opponents faced by the dynasty teams, the lead up form of the teams is very material to this question. It is why I backed the Cats in 09 and 11 to win these Grand Finals. It doesn’t matter how good those teams were in the home and away season if they turn up to the finals series well below their home and away level, and both teams clearly did. Neither Saints nor Pies were even clearly the second best performers in their respective finals series. Both were in reality very fortunate to overcome their Preliminary Final opponents.

If these teams were such good Grand Final opponents they would have had better finals series. All three of each of their finals were way below the dominant level of their home and away seasons. So it was not like it was a one match anomaly, which the Premiers who lost their QF’s clearly showed those games to be.

Your claim that Geelong played the best two Grand Final opponents of the 13 dynasty years looks right if you consider only home and away form and ignore finals form, I happily concede that. But it looks woefully wrong when you consider the finals form, they are not even in the top 8 of the 13 beaten Grand Finalists in that regard. And it is arguable where they sit in the bottom 5, alongside with GWS19, Bombers01, Port07(who were probably clearly above them.)

From where I sit, the Pies11 team that turned up to that GF would have been comfortably beaten by any other of the dynasty Premiers, utterly crushed by some. The Saints09 team that appeared in that Grand Final would, I think, have been competitive in other Grand Finals, but there is absolutely zero in their finals form that would make any one of the other dynasty teams fear playing them in a Grand Final. Most of the other dynasty teams beat opponents with clearly better finals form.

Nothing you've said illustrates that my statement was incorrect:

Almost anyone would rather play team 2 or 3 and avoid team 1.

Also, let me repeat this:

St.Kilda and Collingwood were seen at the time, as stronger than average GF teams.

In fact, heading into the 2009 and 2011 GF's, those 2 GF matchups were seen as tougher GF games- with collectively 2 stronger teams- than most, if not all, subsequent Grand Finals.

In fact, that was an understatement.

I've been following footy since the early 90's.

At the time of the 2009 Grand Final, this was seen as one of the greatest GF matchups in recent memory in terms of the cumulative strength of the combatants.

The H&A matchup was the most hyped H&A game ever- both teams had started 13-0. St Kilda in particular had been absolutely unstoppable, man handling most opponents. The crowd record at Marvel was broken. The game didn't disappoint; an absolute classic, with Gardiner taking the pack mark and winning it for the Saints, which only increased everyone's expectations for the inevitable GF matchup later that year.

Both teams kept winning. They both lost some dead rubbers (Geelong's technically weren't dead rubbers, just games in the 2nd half of the year when they had some injuries. But they essentially were dead rubbers; they were never losing 2nd spot after that 13-0 start).

By the time Grand Final day arrived, it was the game we'd all been patiently waiting all year for; a 50/50 proposition between the stingy Saints who put their opponents under immense pressure, and the star studded Cats in their 3rd Grand Final in a row, led by Gary Ablett (already being talked about as the possible future GOAT) and a super talented team.

The fact the Saints had a below average performance in the prelim did nothing to quell the public's expectations for this game.

The next year, Collingwood came along and essentially took what the Saints had been doing and bettered it. If you thought no one could place their opponents under more pressure than Lyon's Saints, think again. Collingwood won the premiership and were easily the best team in 2010 despite the scare of a draw. Then you get to 2011, where Geelong- aiming for their 3rd flag- and the new Alpha Dogs Collingwood both dominated all year, culminating in another hugely anticipated GF.

10 years later, you're just re-writing history by downplaying the greatness of these two Grand Final matchups which at the time were considered clashes of the Titans. Only Sydney vs Hawthorn in 2014 came close in subsequent years.

 

[Fadge]

Nothing you've said illustrates that my statement was incorrect:





Also, let me repeat this:





In fact, that was an understatement.

I've been following footy since the early 90's.

At the time of the 2009 Grand Final, this was seen as one of the greatest GF matchups in recent memory in terms of the cumulative strength of the combatants.

The H&A matchup was the most hyped H&A game ever- both teams had started 13-0. St Kilda in particular had been absolutely unstoppable, man handling most opponents. The crowd record at Marvel was broken. The game didn't disappoint; an absolute classic, with Gardiner taking the pack mark and winning it for the Saints, which only increased everyone's expectations for the inevitable GF matchup later that year.

Both teams kept winning. They both lost some dead rubbers (Geelong's technically weren't dead rubbers, just games in the 2nd half of the year when they had some injuries. But they essentially were dead rubbers; they were never losing 2nd spot after that 13-0 start).

By the time Grand Final day arrived, it was the game we'd all been patiently waiting all year for; a 50/50 proposition between the stingy Saints who put their opponents under immense pressure, and the star studded Cats in their 3rd Grand Final in a row, led by Gary Ablett (already being talked about as the possible future GOAT) and a super talented team.

The fact the Saints had a below average performance in the prelim did nothing to quell the public's expectations for this game.

The next year, Collingwood came along and essentially took what the Saints had been doing and bettered it. If you thought no one could place their opponents under more pressure than Lyon's Saints, think again. Collingwood won the premiership and were easily the best team in 2010 despite the scare of a draw. Then you get to 2011, where Geelong- aiming for their 3rd flag- and the new Alpha Dogs Collingwood both dominated all year, culminating in another hugely anticipated GF.

10 years later, you're just re-writing history by downplaying the greatness of these two Grand Final matchups which at the time were considered clashes of the Titans. Only Sydney vs Hawthorn in 2014 came close in subsequent years.

Can't disagree with any of that, like most of your posts Pjays.

 

[Fadge]

What's irrational to me is how you and Fadge never disagree with each other, even when one of you says something the other thinks isn't true. For example, when Fadge posts that Collingwood 2002-2003 were better than Richmond 2019-2020, there's not a peep out of you - even though I'm pretty sure you don't buy that. When you post that Geelong 2011 were far and away the best team of that year, Fadge is silent, even though I'm pretty sure Fadge believes Collingwood were right up there. So you won't criticize the other even when you think they're wrong, but at the same time, you whack everyone else for being blinkered and irrational.

Meanwhile, Meteoric Rise just looks at the club supported by the poster, and if it's Richmond, gives it the big thumbs up!

 

[Fadge]

When you post that Geelong 2011 were far and away the best team of that year, Fadge is silent, even though I'm pretty sure Fadge believes Collingwood were right up there.

When your team plays an opponent three times in a season and are beaten every time, it's a pretty difficult argument to make that your team was the better team.

Should I be investing my time debating whether Geelong were 1% better, 3% better, or 5% better?

 

[Dr Tigris]

I keep coming back to this thread and being amazed at how it's evolved.

Anyway, I'll just say that comparing teams over time has one major problem. How to win the game changes and so do how teams play.

So, the Lions played towards the end of the fairly simplistic period of footy. They developed a more professional approach and played a simple style, but based around a sublime teams of all time stars. They used there simple game plan with players that suited that style. Not sophisticated, but simply a better way to play in that era given the team available.

The Cats were in the era where more sophisticated defensive tactics were emerging. The Cats developed a run and gun style that ripped the then current team defence. They also had many superstars across all lines. Their style was more sophisticated than the Lions, but fairly straightforward. They also had players and a game plan that work together.

The Hawks faced a much better structured defensive game across the board than the others. They built a team based on a certain set of skills to allow a game style no-one else played. It took years to work out what the Hawks were doing and develop ways to stop them. Many genuine all time stars in this squad, but lots of very good role players. Over time people started to see some of these role players as actually close to stars in tehri own right, because they learnt to value what they brought to the Hawks success.

The Tigers have developed a game plan that is way more sophisticated in defence than anything before, and has a unique attacking style. They play players to their strengths. Tigers have a few genuine all time stars, and lots of very good role players. Some of what the Tigers do is not captured in the current stats used. Some of it is actually hard to even notice unless you are looking for things the commentators and 'experts' don't even talk about. (e.g. I see Jack Graham

34

Jack Graham

Age

26

Ht

181cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.7

4star

K

8.0

3star

HB

6.8

4star

M

2.1

2star

T

6.3

5star

G

0.4

3star

D

11.8

3star

K

5.3

2star

HB

6.5

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

4.2

5star

G

0.0

1star

D

14.0

4star

K

6.0

3star

HB

8.0

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

7.0

5star

G

1.0

4star

as a genuine top end AFL player, because of the work he does to force the nature of the contest to Richmond's favour - hardly any media attention to that at all).

So in conclusion I genuinely reckon this
1) If the teams had to play 90's style footy it'd be in historical order. Lions, Cats, Hawks, Tigers dead last.

2) If a time machine brought each team (pick their 'best' year) it'd be the opposite Tigers easily first, Hawks, then Geelong then Lions dead last.

If they had time to adapt I have no idea. The Tigers style would win, and the 'better' quality of other teams players may not translate to a different game style. But, the various coaches are very very smart. So, each team would adapt to their own strengths. It's a thought experiment with no correct answer.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Nothing you've said illustrates that my statement was incorrect:





Also, let me repeat this:





In fact, that was an understatement.

I've been following footy since the early 90's.

At the time of the 2009 Grand Final, this was seen as one of the greatest GF matchups in recent memory in terms of the cumulative strength of the combatants.

The H&A matchup was the most hyped H&A game ever- both teams had started 13-0. St Kilda in particular had been absolutely unstoppable, man handling most opponents. The crowd record at Marvel was broken. The game didn't disappoint; an absolute classic, with Gardiner taking the pack mark and winning it for the Saints, which only increased everyone's expectations for the inevitable GF matchup later that year.

Both teams kept winning. They both lost some dead rubbers (Geelong's technically weren't dead rubbers, just games in the 2nd half of the year when they had some injuries. But they essentially were dead rubbers; they were never losing 2nd spot after that 13-0 start).

By the time Grand Final day arrived, it was the game we'd all been patiently waiting all year for; a 50/50 proposition between the stingy Saints who put their opponents under immense pressure, and the star studded Cats in their 3rd Grand Final in a row, led by Gary Ablett (already being talked about as the possible future GOAT) and a super talented team.

The fact the Saints had a below average performance in the prelim did nothing to quell the public's expectations for this game.

The next year, Collingwood came along and essentially took what the Saints had been doing and bettered it. If you thought no one could place their opponents under more pressure than Lyon's Saints, think again. Collingwood won the premiership and were easily the best team in 2010 despite the scare of a draw. Then you get to 2011, where Geelong- aiming for their 3rd flag- and the new Alpha Dogs Collingwood both dominated all year, culminating in another hugely anticipated GF.

10 years later, you're just re-writing history by downplaying the greatness of these two Grand Final matchups which at the time were considered clashes of the Titans. Only Sydney vs Hawthorn in 2014 came close in subsequent years.

My post is about YOUR two statements as follows.


"Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.”

"St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers.”

You come back with a load of rubbish about fans anticipating round 14 clashes etc.

Read the statements YOU made. The first one is absolutely demonstrably wrong by any fair measure. The second on is at the very best a clumsily misguided statement the relies for any credibility upon three highly arguable cases out of the last 21 being accepted:

A) as “many,”(3 out of 21 is not “many” in the world I inhabit,) and
B) as having had weaker finals series than BOTH Pies11, and Saints09.

So you either make the case or concede your statements were wrong.

I mean, why did you even make those statements, what did you base them on? So far you have offered a few Premiers lost QF’s, and something about Saints09 being 3-4 goals ahead of 15 win, 122% Pies09 most of the second half. And something about Saints have more inside 50’s in that match - they ended with 3 scoring shots more than a below average 4th placed team.

Your two super losers might be great Grand Finalists in your head because you were young and impressionable and bought all the media hype at the time. But they didn’t look great Grand Finalists to me prior to those Grand Finals on account of very uninspiring finals wins….and they don’t now. Your case for their finals form prior to the Grand Final being reflective of some greatness is frankly so full of holes you have to keep referring back to home and away dominance to divert attention from it. And pub talk.

 

[PJays]

My post is about YOUR two statements as follows.


"Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.”

"St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers.”

You come back with a load of rubbish about fans anticipating round 14 clashes etc.

Read the statements YOU made. The first one is absolutely demonstrably wrong by any fair measure. The second on is at the very best a clumsily misguided statement the relies for any credibility upon three highly arguable cases out of the last 21 being accepted:

A) as “many,”(3 out of 21 is not “many” in the world I inhabit,) and
B) as having had weaker finals series than BOTH Pies11, and Saints09.

So you either make the case or concede your statements were wrong.

I mean, why did you even make those statements, what did you base them on? So far you have offered a few Premiers lost QF’s, and something about Saints09 being 3-4 goals ahead of 15 win, 122% Pies09 most of the second half. And something about Saints have more inside 50’s in that match - they ended with 3 scoring shots more than a below average 4th placed team.

Your two super losers might be great Grand Finalists in your head because you were young and impressionable and bought all the media hype at the time. But they didn’t look great Grand Finalists to me prior to those Grand Finals on account of very uninspiring finals wins….and they don’t now. Your case for their finals form prior to the Grand Final being reflective of some greatness is frankly so full of holes you have to keep referring back to home and away dominance to divert attention from it. And pub talk.

When I said “most premiers didn’t have a strong finals series before the Grand Final either” I meant very few premiers have 2 convincing wins and go straight through.

For most premiers, one of their wins is a very tight game. Or they lose a QF, relying on their double chance to stay alive.

The statement “St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers” was obviously more subjective. By “many” I didn’t mean “most”.

Most observers consider finals form to be an extension of the H&A season. Finals form isn’t everything; nor is the H&A season. They’re both important and combine to give you a picture of the overall strength of the team.

Collingwood and St Kilda won both finals (despite their lack of crushing 50 point wins). By combining that with their elite H&A away seasons, they were considered above average GF teams going in.

You can disagree all you want using your own methodologies. That’s up to you. After 118 pages, I'm less interested in indulging your, shall we say, “eccentric” approach . I'm just telling you what the majority of footy observers thought, and what their reasons were.

 

[Fadge]

My post is about YOUR two statements as follows.


"Most premiers didn't have a "strong finals series" before the Grand Final either.”

"St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers.”

You come back with a load of rubbish about fans anticipating round 14 clashes etc.

Read the statements YOU made. The first one is absolutely demonstrably wrong by any fair measure. The second on is at the very best a clumsily misguided statement the relies for any credibility upon three highly arguable cases out of the last 21 being accepted:

A) as “many,”(3 out of 21 is not “many” in the world I inhabit,) and
B) as having had weaker finals series than BOTH Pies11, and Saints09.

So you either make the case or concede your statements were wrong.

I mean, why did you even make those statements, what did you base them on? So far you have offered a few Premiers lost QF’s, and something about Saints09 being 3-4 goals ahead of 15 win, 122% Pies09 most of the second half. And something about Saints have more inside 50’s in that match - they ended with 3 scoring shots more than a below average 4th placed team.

Your two super losers might be great Grand Finalists in your head because you were young and impressionable and bought all the media hype at the time. But they didn’t look great Grand Finalists to me prior to those Grand Finals on account of very uninspiring finals wins….and they don’t now. Your case for their finals form prior to the Grand Final being reflective of some greatness is frankly so full of holes you have to keep referring back to home and away dominance to divert attention from it. And pub talk.

The rankings of losing Grand Finalists to each of the 'dynasty' teams has been discussed in reasonable detail in this thread, and most are aligned. Except you.

Go ahead and rank the quality of the 13 losing Grand Final teams (including Geelong 2008).

Maybe ratings out of 100 for each team, so as we get some relativity.

I need a good laugh.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I keep coming back to this thread and being amazed at how it's evolved.

Anyway, I'll just say that comparing teams over time has one major problem. How to win the game changes and so do how teams play.

So, the Lions played towards the end of the fairly simplistic period of footy. They developed a more professional approach and played a simple style, but based around a sublime teams of all time stars. They used there simple game plan with players that suited that style. Not sophisticated, but simply a better way to play in that era given the team available.

The Cats were in the era where more sophisticated defensive tactics were emerging. The Cats developed a run and gun style that ripped the then current team defence. They also had many superstars across all lines. Their style was more sophisticated than the Lions, but fairly straightforward. They also had players and a game plan that work together.

The Hawks faced a much better structured defensive game across the board than the others. They built a team based on a certain set of skills to allow a game style no-one else played. It took years to work out what the Hawks were doing and develop ways to stop them. Many genuine all time stars in this squad, but lots of very good role players. Over time people started to see some of these role players as actually close to stars in tehri own right, because they learnt to value what they brought to the Hawks success.

The Tigers have developed a game plan that is way more sophisticated in defence than anything before, and has a unique attacking style. They play players to their strengths. Tigers have a few genuine all time stars, and lots of very good role players. Some of what the Tigers do is not captured in the current stats used. Some of it is actually hard to even notice unless you are looking for things the commentators and 'experts' don't even talk about. (e.g. I see Jack Graham as a genuine top end AFL player, because of the work he does to force the nature of the contest to Richmond's favour - hardly any media attention to that at all).

So in conclusion I genuinely reckon this
1) If the teams had to play 90's style footy it'd be in historical order. Lions, Cats, Hawks, Tigers dead last.

2) If a time machine brought each team (pick their 'best' year) it'd be the opposite Tigers easily first, Hawks, then Geelong then Lions dead last.

If they had time to adapt I have no idea. The Tigers style would win, and the 'better' quality of other teams players may not translate to a different game style. But, the various coaches are very very smart. So, each team would adapt to their own strengths. It's a thought experiment with no correct answer.

Very well balanced post. I would just add the Hawks at their absolute keepings off best and Tigers at their absolute chaos footy best would perhaps not be so easy to predict.

You have illustrated perfectly with your post why a lot of people can’t have this Richmond team, and to some extent the Hawks before them. It is because they are stuck judging things against the normal measures used in earlier decades. My good mate who I played a lot of footy with, and is a smart guy, he is a Hawks supporter. He swore black and blue Clarkson was the Hawks’ biggest problem throughout their dynasty period. His reasoning was that he was going to games and the players just weren’t behaving the way we grew up expecting from good teams. They were purposefully running away from the ball etc. Not manning up side by side with direct opponents and so on. These tactics were blamed for every loss, but none of the wins. . I tried to explain footy had moved on a bit but in the end it is too hard for most people to switch from the first paradigm they learn in a field to new ways of thinking.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The rankings of losing Grand Finalists to each of the 'dynasty' teams has been discussed in reasonable detail in this thread, and most are aligned. Except you.

Go ahead and rank the quality of the 13 losing Grand Final teams (including Geelong 2008).

I need a good laugh.

You know my arguments. If those rankings have Saints09 and Pies11 as the top two beaten teams to turn up on Grand Final day, they are wrong. And they are wrong because they have over-estimated the less relevant home and away form, and wildly under-estimated the form that counts most in Grand Finals, the instant form from preceding finals. It is that simple.

 

[Fadge]

You know my arguments. If those rankings have Saints09 and Pies11 as the top two beaten teams to turn up on Grand Final day, they are wrong. And they are wrong because they have over-estimated the less relevant home and away form, and wildly under-estimated the form that counts most in Grand Finals, the instant form from preceding finals. It is that simple.

That is not an answer.

For example, in 2007, Port Adelaide defeated the team that had played in the previous two Grand Finals in their Qualifying Final, and followed up by winning their Preliminary Final by 87 points, against a team who had beaten a team who would go on to win the following season's premiership the previous week.

This is after they had beaten their Grand Final opponents on their home turf (the only team to do so that year) in the second last home and away game of the season.

That seems to be pretty good form leading into a Grand Final to me, but 119 suggests otherwise.

So, what are YOUR rankings?

 

[PJays]

And they are wrong because they have over-estimated the less relevant home and away form, and wildly under-estimated the form that counts most in Grand Finals, the instant form from preceding finals.

You should trademark your magic wand. You could make squillions

All the Elsa loving 4 year old girls would lap it up!

 

[Roby]

PJays is averaging 6 posts a day in thread since he started this account two months. I have them on ignore, so I'm not sure how much content his putting out there but that's a lot of time to be trying to discuss a team that is not even Dynasty worthy, has the 2009 Bradbury and resided in the Hawks-Clarko Dynasty from 2008-2015.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

When I said “most premiers didn’t have a strong finals series before the Grand Final either” I meant very few premiers have 2 convincing wins and go straight through.

For most premiers, one of their wins is a very tight game. Or they lose a QF, relying on their double chance to stay alive.

The statement “St Kilda and Collingwood had better finals series, before the GF, than many premiers” was obviously more subjective. By “many” I didn’t mean “most”.

Most observers consider finals form to be an extension of the H&A season. Finals form isn’t everything; nor is the H&A season. They’re both important and combine to give you a picture of the overall strength of the team.

Collingwood and St Kilda won both finals (despite their lack of crushing 50 point wins). By combining that with their elite H&A away seasons, they were considered above average GF teams going in.

You can disagree all you want using your own methodologies. That’s up to you. After 118 pages, I'm less interested in indulging your, shall we say, “eccentric” approach . I'm just telling you what the majority of footy observers thought, and what their reasons were.

No wonder I have profited from betting on sport.

It is pointless telling someone who understood what was going on ahead of time that the masses shown to be wrong then are now right, just because they are masses, and I am “eccentric.” They were wrong!

Essendon 01
Brisbane 02
Hawthorn 08
Geelong 09
Collingwood 10
Geelong 11
Swans 12
Tigers 17
Eagles 18
Tigers 19

Are 10 of the last 21 Premiers who by your measures - two comfortable wins, no losses waltzed through the finals series. So in saying most Premiers either have a very tight game OR lose a QF you are excluding teams who had ten extra scoring shots than one opponent and smashed the other - Hawks 2013 - and a team like Eagles 06 who had two very strong wins after being beaten with 4 extra scoring shots by a team who was almost exactly as good as they were. Both in reality had very strong finals series.

When your definition of strong finals performances leading into the GF excludes teams like this, your definition is clearly wrong. You designed the definition to get a certain result. It is more useful to actually look at the situation and assess it on its merits.

So 12 of the last 21 Premiers entered the GF with undeniably strong finals form, even excluding 4 that lost QF’s and another 5 that had a tight match, 4 of which were I believe won on merit. In all those tight matches bar one, let it be noted, the eventual premier had more scoring shots than their opponent, normally by at least 4. The one that did not, Hawks 2014, were imo lucky to beat the best team in that finals series, Port Adelaide.

Even to get the number down to 12 with strong finals performances we are excluding two teams, Hawks 15 and Lions 03 who lost QF’s but cruised thereafter into their respective Grand Finals against the teams who beat them and won by big margins, showing the earlier one off losses to be clearly anomalous. So on balance we are really looking at as minimum of 14 of the 21 Premiers who had strong finals form leading

In short, it is a total nonsense to say most Premiers don’t go into the Grand Final on the back of a strong finals series. They do.

But add to this list of Premiers with strong form, the following list of runners-up with strong finals form leading in:

Pies 02
Pies 03
Cats 08
Hawks 12
Freo 13
Swans 14
Eagles 15
Crows 17

who each clearly carried better form into their Grand Finals than your two super losers, BY YOUR DEFINITION. This is where your argument really falls over. There are seven other dynasty runners-up teams who had better finals form than your pair no matter how you slice and dice it. And 8 in the last 21 seasons. In reality the lists of both Premiers and Runners-Up with better finals form than your pair runs a lot deeper than this but I have tightened the criteria up to the point where it would be completely obviously wrong to tighten it further in order to show how wrong your claims are.

The Saints09 and Pies11 both scraped through to Grand Finals on the back of PF’s where they had less scoring shots. Hawks14 are the only other Grand Finalist to do that this century, and in their case I believe they were playing the best team in the finals series. Your teams were not, they were playing teams who had been more comfortably beaten by the eventual Premier.

 

[PJays]

No wonder I have profited from betting on sport.

It is pointless telling someone who understood what was going on ahead of time that the masses shown to be wrong then are now right, just because they are masses, and I am “eccentric.” They were wrong!

Just FYI I have a good tipping record, and whilst I only occasionally gamble very small amounts for fun, my overall record would be in profit making territory.

Many factors interplay when tipping or predicting:

Who’s the better team?
Location
Injuries
History between the two teams
Form
Intangibles and psychological factors
Specific matchup/tactical issues

(Not necessarily in order).

Form isn’t always a reliable guide. Eg:

Sydney 2014, who had one of the most dominant preliminary finals wins on record- winning every quarter convincingly and, to use your favourite stat, a whopping 41 scoring shots to 20. Had won 18 of 20 Then were well beaten from the opening bounce of the Grand Final.

Adelaide 2017 an example you know well.

Port Adelaide 2007- Won 9 of 10 including the prelim by 87.

Collingwood 2003 – Had won, what was it, 11 of 12?

Geelong 1995- an example I assume you’re also familiar with! Won their opening two finals by 82 and 89 points, including a prelim vs your mob. Destroyed in the GF by Carlton.

I could go on.

Clearly putting all your stock in form would be a mistake. It’s one of many factors. And actually, I always remember “Form is fickle”. It’s there, and then it’s gone. When the trend continues, it looks obvious in hindsight. But that doesn’t mean the trend always continues.

Essendon 01
Brisbane 02
Hawthorn 08
Geelong 09
Collingwood 10
Geelong 11
Swans 12
Tigers 17
Eagles 18
Tigers 19

Are 10 of the last 21 Premiers who by your measures - two comfortable wins, no losses waltzed through the finals series.

Eagles 2018 were losing for the entire 2nd half of their qualifying final against Collingwood, before taking the lead at the 24 minute mark of the last quarter, and kicking 3 late goals to win by 16.

Richmond 2019 came from 21 points down at half time in the prelim against Geelong, and didn’t have the Cats “in the bag” until about 10 minutes to go. Not a thoroughly convincing win.

I’ll give you 8 of the last 21 premiers who entered their Grand Final with a convincing QF win, followed by a convincing prelim win.

Taking this back to it's original context, the fact that St.Kilda 2009 and Collingwood 2011 had a less than convincing win on their way to the Grand Final. So what? That puts them in great company.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That is not an answer.

For example, in 2007, Port Adelaide defeated the team that had played in the previous two Grand Finals in their Qualifying Final, and followed up by winning their Preliminary Final by 87 points, against a team who had beaten a team who would go on to win the following season's premiership the previous week.

This is after they had beaten their Grand Final opponents on their home turf (the only team to do so that year) in the second last home and away game of the season.

That seems to be pretty good form leading into a Grand Final to me, but 119 suggests otherwise.

So, what are YOUR rankings?

Port won a home final against Eagles by 3 points. Eagles finished 3rd on the ladder with 15 wins and 112%. The Eagles went on to be eliminated the next week at home in the west by your purported club, Collingwood, who had finished 6th with 13 wins and 101%.

This Eagles team that Port fell in against was not the Eagles that had played in the last two Grand Finals. That Eagles team would have destroyed Port Adelaide. So I don’t know how you can possibly be submitting Port scraping a home win against the Eagles07 as if it was strong form. That is laughable. This was an Eagles team that ended up losing 9 of their final 18 matches for the season, and of those only the loss to Port and a Rd 11 loss to the Bombers were under 19 points. In short, they were finished as any sort of serious finals threat. Port’s effort in that match would be lucky to rate par for a mid table team.

Port’s rd 22 victory over Geelong at Geelong is not a credible result as it was a dead fixture for Geelong.

So to assess Port’s form leading into the GF as good for a grand Finalist, you are relying on one single result, their smashing of the Roos in the PF. The rest of their believable form in the lead-up to their GF was no more than you might expect from an upper mid-table type team.

None of Port07, Saints09, Pies11 are in my top eight for finals form leading into their respective Grand Finals out of the 13 dynasty runners-up. The bottom 5 are not easy to reliably rank, if pressed, on reflection and closer examination of Port here, I would probably say:

9 Saints09
10 Bombers01
11 Pies11
12 GWS19
13 Port07

On the basis Saints were performing around an expected level for a team ranked 2nd-3rd, Bombers and Pies maybe around a level normally expected from a 3rd-4th best team, GWS much tougher to position as they beat the top and 5th teams away by similar margins, but maybe also around the same level as the Pies and Bombers. Port you also have anomalous form which is always tougher to read. Of the reliable form some of it was mid table level maybe lower reaches of the 8, and the PF win seemed to step out of this zone into what you might normally expect from a team ranked about second. We got our answer as to which of this form was the true form a week later.

 

[Fadge]

Port won a home final against Eagles by 3 points. Eagles finished 3rd on the ladder with 15 wins and 112%. The Eagles went on to be eliminated the next week at home in the west by your purported club, Collingwood, who had finished 6th with 13 wins and 101%.

This Eagles team that Port fell in against was not the Eagles that had played in the last two Grand Finals. That Eagles team would have destroyed Port Adelaide. So I don’t know how you can possibly be submitting Port scraping a home win against the Eagles07 as if it was strong form. That is laughable. This was an Eagles team that ended up losing 9 of their final 18 matches for the season, and of those only the loss to Port and a Rd 11 loss to the Bombers were under 19 points. In short, they were finished as any sort of serious finals threat. Port’s effort in that match would be lucky to rate par for a mid table team.

Port’s rd 22 victory over Geelong at Geelong is not a credible result as it was a dead fixture for Geelong.

So to assess Port’s form leading into the GF as good for a grand Finalist, you are relying on one single result, their smashing of the Roos in the PF. The rest of their believable form in the lead-up to their GF was no more than you might expect from an upper mid-table type team.

None of Port07, Saints09, Pies11 are in my top eight for finals form leading into their respective Grand Finals out of the 13 dynasty runners-up. The bottom 5 are not easy to reliably rank, if pressed, on reflection and closer examination of Port here, I would probably say:

9 Saints09
10 Bombers01
11 Pies11
12 GWS19
13 Port07

On the basis Saints were performing around an expected level for a team ranked 2nd-3rd, Bombers and Pies maybe around a level normally expected from a 3rd-4th best team, GWS much tougher to position as they beat the top and 5th teams away by similar margins, but maybe also around the same level as the Pies and Bombers. Port you also have anomalous form which is always tougher to read. Of the reliable form some of it was mid table level maybe lower reaches of the 8, and the PF win seemed to step out of this zone into what you might normally expect from a team ranked about second. We got our answer as to which of this form was the true form a week later.

I didn't ask about finals form.

I asked you to rank the quality of all 13 Runners Up that are relevant to this thread.

Unless you're suggesting finals form is the ONLY consideration? (i.e. throwing out 6 months of results for a data set of 2, maybe 3, games)

So please keep it simple - List of the 13 teams in order of quality, ranked out of 100 for relativity.

My list, for example, ranking the strongest team as 100, and ranking all other teams relatively:
100 - Geelong 2008
99 - Collingwood 2011
97 - St. Kilda 2009
94 - Essendon 2001
91 - Sydney 2014
90 - Adelaide 2017
88 - Fremantle 2013
86 - Geelong 2020
85 - West Coast 2015
83 - Port Adelaide 2007
80 - Collingwood 2003
75 - GWS 2019
70 - Collingwood 2002

 

[PJays]

The Saints09 and Pies11 both scraped through to Grand Finals on the back of PF’s where they had less scoring shots.

In 2019 and 2020, Richmond played a final where they had less scoring shots than their opponent.

Across the first 2 weeks of their 2020 finals campaign, Richmond had 4 less scoring shots than their opponents. (34 to 38).

In every year of Hawthorn's 3peat, they played a final where they failed to register more scoring shots than their opponent.

Maybe scoring shots aren't that important?

Or maybe Hawthorn and Richmond weren't so great?

Which is it? Tell us....