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

Which dynasty is the greatest?


  • Total voters
    341

Remove this Banner Ad

Stan_Darsh72

100% Hemp
Jun 18, 2011
37,638
61,558
AFL Club
St Kilda
Did you just argue that Geelong going wlwlw is actually better than if they had gone wwwlw as everyone expected them to win 2008

because it’s a rarer sequence occurring in vfl afl history?

and would have killed this argument stone dead if they had
If Geelong wins in 08 do they win in 09?
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
The flaw in your theory is, why is the parameter set at 5 years??? why not 10, then the Cats with their additional finals appearances win easily don't they.
Or limit it to three years, and you could claim the cats only won 1 in 3 years if you went 08-10...??? the worst of the lot.

What you are doing, is really just counting premierships, so aren't Essendon and Carlton the best dynasties?

Fair questions.

It is obvious, to me at least that if we are comparing what the 4 teams achieved, we need a window that captures what they all achieved, and then that window should be applied to each of the teams. To not do that would be to exclude certain relevant achievements, which to me makes no sense at all.

I have studied what all of these teams achieved quite carefully on a predecessor to this thread. Brisbane own an overlooked achievement that I think defines the window that should rightly be applied in order to make a fair comparison. They are the only one of these teams to win at least one final in 6 consecutive seasons, 1999-2004 inclusive. I think that one finals win in 1999 is just enough of an achievement to warrant consideration in this thread. No team achieved anything significant over a longer period, though I do think the Hawks 08 flag is sufficiently related to their later treble to warrant consideration as well. So you could go as far as to say there is now an 8 year span we can compare all these teams over. The trouble with that is Richmond’s period of relevant achievement only started 5 years ago.

So after all of that I would think the best comparison is a 5 year span(capturing all of the Cats’ flags) but with consideration given to other related meritorious achievements related to the 5 year period, thus Lions 1999 finals win, and Hawks 2008 flag. That is the way I would reason that out, it is not necessarily straightforward but imo it is fair and allows a fair comparison.

HH - "What you are doing, is really just counting premierships, so aren't Essendon and Carlton the best dynasties?”

I am happy to split hairs down to the last millimetre of yardage gained if you want. I have found reasons outside of simply counting flags to rate the teams:

1. Hawks
2. Lions
3. Cats
4. Tigers

So it is obvious I am not stopping at the Premiership count. I have analysed and argued ad nauseam over issues like finals achievements v home and away achievements, quality of finals opponents etc. It is not simply a Premiership count for me.

But when people turn up and argue Hawks and Lions are miles ahead simply because they won 3 in succession, they are reducing the debate to one of only how many consecutive flags a team has won. This to me is so badly misguided as to be laughable. Because it is no easier to win 3 flags in Geelong’s WxWxW sequence, or Richmond’s WxWWx sequence than it is to win in the Hawks and Lions xWWWx sequence. It simply isn’t. I could lay out the sequences of all instances of 3 flags within 5 years - it has happened 14 times I think in VFL/AFL history. I would be near certain that the single most common sequence in the set is xWWWx. The reason for this is probably due to the related contingency effect, which would diminish with each passing year as your team changes. So if anything, it is actually easier to produce a xWWWx than any other single sequence of 3 flags in 5 seasons.

As far as your allusion to Carlton and Essendon being the greatest dynasties, their achievements are neither relevant to this thread nor would you consider their 16 flags each to all form part of what you would call a dynasty. So I am not sure why you have brought that up.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Trav 20

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
9,428
7,358
16.4 100 - 1.1 7
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Dees
Fair questions.

It is obvious, to me at least that if we are comparing what the 4 teams achieved, we need a window that captures what they all achieved, and then that window should be applied to each of the teams. To not do that would be to exclude certain relevant achievements, which to me makes no sense at all.

I have studied what all of these teams achieved quite carefully on a predecessor to this thread. Brisbane own an overlooked achievement that I think defines the window that should rightly be applied in order to make a fair comparison. They are the only one of these teams to win at least one final in 6 consecutive seasons, 1999-2004 inclusive. I think that one finals win in 1999 is just enough of an achievement to warrant consideration in this thread. No team achieved anything significant over a longer period, though I do think the Hawks 08 flag is sufficiently related to their later treble to warrant consideration as well. So you could go as far as to say there is now an 8 year span we can compare all these teams over. The trouble with that is Richmond’s period of relevant achievement only started 5 years ago.

So after all of that I would think the best comparison is a 5 year span(capturing all of the Cats’ flags) but with consideration given to other related meritorious achievements related to the 5 year period, thus Lions 1999 finals win, and Hawks 2008 flag. That is the way I would reason that out, it is not necessarily straightforward but imo it is fair and allows a fair comparison.

HH - "What you are doing, is really just counting premierships, so aren't Essendon and Carlton the best dynasties?”

I am happy to split hairs down to the last millimetre of yardage gained if you want. I have found reasons outside of simply counting flags to rate the teams:

1. Hawks
2. Lions
3. Cats
4. Tigers

So it is obvious I am not stopping at the Premiership count. I have analysed and argued ad nauseam over issues like finals achievements v home and away achievements, quality of finals opponents etc. It is not simply a Premiership count for me.

But when people turn up and argue Hawks and Lions are miles ahead simply because they won 3 in succession, they are reducing the debate to one of only how many consecutive flags a team has won. This to me is so badly misguided as to be laughable. Because it is no easier to win 3 flags in Geelong’s WxWxW sequence, or Richmond’s WxWWx sequence than it is to win in the Hawks and Lions xWWWx sequence. It simply isn’t. I could lay out the sequences of all instances of 3 flags within 5 years - it has happened 14 times I think in VFL/AFL history. I would be near certain that the single most common sequence in the set is xWWWx. The reason for this is probably due to the related contingency effect, which would diminish with each passing year as your team changes. So if anything, it is actually easier to produce a xWWWx than any other single sequence of 3 flags in 5 seasons.

As far as your allusion to Carlton and Essendon being the greatest dynasties, their achievements are neither relevant to this thread nor would you consider their 16 flags each to all form part of what you would call a dynasty. So I am not sure why you have brought that up.
Rightly or wrongly I also factor in how dominant the teams were, such as end of year percentage, games won in given premiership years, how many players made AA in a flag year, etc.

For example, Richmond never finished top 2 in their premiership years. Brisbane were never minor premiers.

Geelong had 9 AA in 2007 and Hawthorn never had more than 3 in their threepeat. Nor did Richmond have more than 3 AA in any of their flag years.

There are so many variables one could use to determine quality and dominance in a singular flag year when weighing up era dominance.

As I've already mentioned, feats such as Borg winning 5 Wimbledons in a row was lauded because it had never been done before.

Notable winning streaks such as Winx and Black Caviar are remembered, because that's what they were, streaks. Makybe Diva winning 3 Melbourne Cups in a row. Sustained era dominance.

Horses dominating particular cup carnivals is another. Multiple group 1s in the same season. There's something special about dominating a smaller window than having it spread out.

It's just a vibe. For me at least anyway.
 
Last edited:

Noidnadroj

Club Legend
Dec 8, 2020
1,166
2,780
AFL Club
Richmond
Whilst on tennis, how many consecutive Australian Open titles has Novak won?

What about consecutive French Open titles for Rafa?

Quickly...

How much more impressive would their records be if they didn't have 'losing years'?!?

I was referring to the probability of achieving it. Tell Ash Barry she needs to win 3 x Aussie Opens. Then ask yourself the odds of achieving this if given 3-years compared to 5-years. Of course doing it in 3-years is decidedly more difficult than doing it in 5. But at the end of her career, I accept that if she has won 3 x Aussie Opens in total the record books won’t really differentiate the achievement.

But achieving something that is decidedly more difficult - which winning 3 in a row than 3 over 5 years would be - could easily be argued to be more meritorious.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
8,400
6,877
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
I was referring to the probability of achieving it. Tell Ash Barry she needs to win 3 x Aussie Opens. Then ask yourself the odds of achieving this if given 3-years compared to 5-years. Of course doing it in 3-years is decidedly more difficult than doing it in 5. But at the end of her career, I accept that if she has won 3 x Aussie Opens in total the record books won’t really differentiate the achievement.

But achieving something that is decidedly more difficult - which winning 3 in a row than 3 over 5 years would be - could easily be argued to be more meritorious.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Everyone is going around in circles here.

The arguments have been shared ad nauseum from both perspectives, and as mature adults sometimes we have to agree to disagree.
 

Noidnadroj

Club Legend
Dec 8, 2020
1,166
2,780
AFL Club
Richmond
Why?

Also, you don't know the streaks for Novak at the Aus Open or Rafa at the French Open off the top of your head?

I know Bjorg won 6 x French in a row and 5 x Wimbledon in a row - he’s very famous for that. I think that’s given him extra kudos over other multiple major winners.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Let’s have a look at all the sequences of 3 flags in 5 years. Where one flag sits within 2 such sequences, eg Hwaks 88-89 can for a sequence with both the 86 flag and the 91 flag, I will just lay out the whole sequence. I will start each sequence the year before the first flag unless this would exclude the final flag or the sequence last longer than 5 years.

Carlton 1905-09 xWWWx

Collingwood 26-30 xWWWW

Melbourne 38-42 xWWWx

Essendon 46-50 WxxWW

Melbourne 55-60 WWWxWW

Carlton 68-72 WxWxW

Carlton 78-82 xWxWW

Hawthorn 86-91 WxWWxW

Brisbane 2000-2004 xWWWx

Geelong 2007-11 WxWxW

Hawthorn 2012-2016 xWWWx

Richmond 2016-2020 xWxWW



I am going to say here the two sequences of more than 4 flags within a 5 year window, Pies 27-30 and Demons 55-60 are on a different level to the 3 flag in 5 year teams, so leave them out of the discussion.

Let’s also exclude the only other team to achieve 4 flags in a 6 year span, the Hawks 86-91, as this is also on another level.

So the other 9 on the above list, we have:

xWWWx occurs 4 times.

WxWxW occurs 2 times

xWxWW occurs 2 times

WxxWW occurs 1 time

So of the 9 teams ever to win 3 flags within 5 seasons, and excluding the 3 teams who went on to win a 4th within 6 seasons, 4 have won their 3 flags consecutively and 5 have not won theirs consecutively. But easily the most common sequence is the 3 in succession.

If given 5 years to win 3 flags - which all the team under discussion have done, no more, no less - it is clearly no harder to win 3 in succession than in any other sequence. If it was, then we would not see the WWW being the most common sequence, it is as simple as that.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
8,400
6,877
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
I know Bjorg won 6 x French in a row and 5 x Wimbledon in a row - he’s very famous for that. I think that’s given him extra kudos over other multiple major winners.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Borg won 6 French Open titles, with max. 4 in a row.

Rafa has has 2 separate sequences of 4 in a row, in addition to a 5 in a row.

Borg won 5 Wimbledon titles in a row, but so too did Federer. Sampras won 7 in 8 years.

I only knew all that by referring to the results on the world wide web, because none of it is really relevant.

However, all tennis fans would know Rafa has a bakers dozen of French Open titles.
 

Noidnadroj

Club Legend
Dec 8, 2020
1,166
2,780
AFL Club
Richmond
The flaw in your theory is, why is the parameter set at 5 years??? why not 10, then the Cats with their additional finals appearances win easily don't they.
Or limit it to three years, and you could claim the cats only won 1 in 3 years if you went 08-10...??? the worst of the lot.

What you are doing, is really just counting premierships, so aren't Essendon and Carlton the best dynasties?

Yeah, exactly. Over 125 years it’s harder to win 16 flags than it is to win 15 flags, so Carlton and Essendon have achieved the best combination of winning flags across any number of data sets you want to dream up.

If Richmond win it in 2022, what I ‘think’ you are doing is presenting an argument that what the Hawks did from 2008-2015 in winning 4 could be rated the equal of Richmond from 2017-2022 as it was over a longer period and could be included in a wider number of grouped yearly timeframes.

Tigers: WxWWxW
Hawks: WxxxxWWW

But I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue Richmond’s dynasty wouldn’t go number one if they win it in 2022.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Rightly or wrongly I also factor in how dominant the teams were, such as end of year percentage, games won in given premiership years, how many players made AA in a flag year, etc.

For example, Richmond never finished top 2 in their premiership years. Brisbane were never minor premiers.

Geelong had 9 AA in 2007 and Hawthorn never had more than 3 in their threepeat. Nor did Richmond have more than 3 AA in any of their flag years.

There are so many variables one could use to determine quality and dominance in a singular flag year when weighing up era dominance.

As I've already mentioned, feats such as Borg winning 5 Wimbledons in a row was lauded because it had never been done before.

Notable winning streaks such as Winx and Black Caviar are remembered, because that's what they were, streaks. Makybe Diva winning 3 Melbourne Cups in a row. Sustained era dominance.

Horses dominating particular cup carnivals is another. Multiple group 1s in the same season. There's something special about dominating a smaller window than having it spread out.

It's just a vibe. For me at least anyway.

There are a million things you could consider. If trying to separate teams with the same Premiership credentials I just go to performance in the games you have to perform in to win a flag. Ie the finals. My reasoning is the competition is designed to reward teams who perform best in finals. Beyond a certain level of wins and % in the home and away season, any other achievements are redundant to the overall aim of winning the Premiership so to me they count for nothing in a discussion like this. AA selections are drawn from the home and away season only and are also subjectively selected. So to me they are not evidence of a team being better than another team.

Others demur, fair enough. I know from managing my betting bank, that sequences do not matter at the end of the day. If you are doing it properly then winning 60 bets from 100 will yield the same profit regardless of what sequence your wins and losses take.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Trav 20

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
9,428
7,358
16.4 100 - 1.1 7
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Dees
There are a million things you could consider. If trying to separate teams with the same Premiership credentials I just go to performance in the games you have to perform in to win a flag. Ie the finals. My reasoning is the competition is designed to reward teams who perform best in finals. Beyond a certain level of wins and % in the home and away season, any other achievements are redundant to the overall aim of winning the Premiership so to me they count for nothing in a discussion like this. AA selections are drawn from the home and away season only and are also subjectively selected. So to me they are not evidence of a team being better than another team.

Others demur, fair enough. I know from managing my betting bank, that sequences do not matter at the end of the day. If you are doing it properly then winning 60 bets from 100 will yield the same profit regardless of what sequence your wins and losses take.
OK.

We'll agree to differ there.

The season in its entirety is very important for me when comparing different premiership eras.
 

Hank Heavenly

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Apr 10, 2013
4,732
11,648
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
East Fremantle
Because it is no easier to win 3 flags in Geelong’s WxWxW sequence, or Richmond’s WxWWx sequence than it is to win in the Hawks and Lions xWWWx sequence. It simply isn’t. I could lay out the sequences of all instances of 3 flags within 5 years - it has happened 14 times I think in VFL/AFL history. I would be near certain that the single most common sequence in the set is xWWWx. The reason for this is probably due to the related contingency effect, which would diminish with each passing year as your team changes. So if anything, it is actually easier to produce a xWWWx than any other single sequence of 3 flags in 5 seasons.
not really at all....

If we take your premise of a 5 year period, then there is no way a xWWWx is the easier method, mathematically that statement is just incorrect.

Any sequence, to result in 3 of out 5, winning year 1 WILL ALWAYS be best positioned, mathematically or otherwise, by winning the first sequence.

If Team A wins in year 1, then for the remaining years, they only need to win 50% of premierships on offer...
If Team B doesn't win year 1, then for the remaining years, they are required to win 75% of the premiership on offer...

If Team A then goes B2B, for the remaining years, they only need to win 33% of the premierships on offer...
If Team B wins year 2, as per your example, they still need to win 66% of the premierships on offer, still a worse % than Team A after year 1.

if you are not talking mathematically, but say emotionally, it could easily be said, the pressure or challenge of going B2B is still easier than breaking the hoodoo of winning your first one...
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Yeah, exactly. Over 125 years it’s harder to win 16 flags than it is to win 15 flags, so Carlton and Essendon have achieved the best combination of winning flags across any number of data sets you want to dream up.

If Richmond win it in 2022, what I ‘think’ you are doing is presenting an argument that what the Hawks did from 2008-2015 in winning 4 could be rated the equal of Richmond from 2017-2022 as it was over a longer period and could be included in a wider number of grouped yearly timeframes.

Tigers: WxWWxW
Hawks: WxxxxWWW

But I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue Richmond’s dynasty wouldn’t go number one if they win it in 2022.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You are getting into a different realm here.
Only 60 from 100?!?

You should be more like Arr0w and 'only bet on certainties'!!!

Lol, I lied actually. We would normally be doing well to win half the markets we bet in even if most of the bets are around even money. We tend to kitchen sink bets when we are confident we have strong value though, which gets you ahead. But most nights I go to bed with the label “loser" hanging over me. Most people can’t cope with that, but you know, it suits me perfectly. 😁
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
not really at all....

If we take your premise of a 5 year period, then there is no way a xWWWx is the easier method, mathematically that statement is just incorrect.

Any sequence, to result in 3 of out 5, winning year 1 WILL ALWAYS be best positioned, mathematically or otherwise, by winning the first sequence.

If Team A wins in year 1, then for the remaining years, they only need to win 50% of premierships on offer...
If Team B doesn't win year 1, then for the remaining years, they are required to win 75% of the premiership on offer...

If Team A then goes B2B, for the remaining years, they only need to win 33% of the premierships on offer...
If Team B wins year 2, as per your example, they still need to win 66% of the premierships on offer, still a worse % than Team A after year 1.

if you are not talking mathematically, but say emotionally, it could easily be said, the pressure or challenge of going B2B is still easier than breaking the hoodoo of winning your first one...

OK, take the first year of the treble as the first of the sequence then. WWWxx. So the threepeaters start with a flag to make it “easier” for them according to you. They still end up only winning 3 in 5 years.

You raise the issue of emotionally difficulty. What is to say it is any more emotionally difficult to win one flag compared to another? All that stuff is just made up. Emotions(fear, anger, euphoria, shock, etc) apply in different situations according to how you perceive what you are experiencing or going to experience or have experienced. Every player looks full of hope and confidence prior to every GF. Half of them look miserable afterwards, and the other half look like look like they just found out they are going to spend a night in bed with the 1970’s version of Delvene Delaney.

You can slice it or dice it how you like, there is no sensible thing to say that winning 3 flags in a 5 year span is easier or harder in any sequence other perhaps than the possibility that the related contingency effect makes winning B2B flags slightly more likely than winning the same amount of flags in other sequences.

I think I presented in an earlier post, there are 23 instances of teams winning at least 2 flags in succession, but only 16 instances of a WxW sequence. Which sort of supports the related contingency theory, don’t you think?
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
OK.

We'll agree to differ there.

The season in its entirety is very important for me when comparing different premiership eras.

I am not going to go through it all again, but I did show on the other thread, that performance in lead up finals was a much stronger indicator of likely success in a Grand Final than performance in the home and away season. And the aim is to win Premierships, that is what the competition is. So I am not calling a team or player who dominates a home and away season better than a team or player who dominates a finals series, where that is the choice. To me that doesn’t make sense, because you get nothing for dominating home and away series. Brownlows and AA guernseys maybe.
 

Hank Heavenly

🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Apr 10, 2013
4,732
11,648
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
East Fremantle
OK, take the first year of the treble as the first of the sequence then. WWWxx. So the threepeaters start with a flag to make it “easier” for them according to you. They still end up only winning 3 in 5 years.

You raise the issue of emotionally difficulty. What is to say it is any more emotionally difficult to win one flag compared to another? All that stuff is just made up. Emotions(fear, anger, euphoria, shock, etc) apply in different situations according to how you perceive what you are experiencing or going to experience or have experienced. Every player looks full of hope and confidence prior to every GF. Half of them look miserable afterwards, and the other half look like look like they just found out they are going to spend a night in bed with the 1970’s version of Delvene Delaney.
I only added the emotional part in case you wanted to discuss it, my premise was based on mathematics... So I'm more than happy to scrap it.

You can slice it or dice it how you like, there is no sensible thing to say that winning 3 flags in a 5 year span is easier or harder in any sequence other perhaps than the possibility that the related contingency effect makes winning B2B flags slightly more likely than winning the same amount of flags in other sequences.

Actually, mathematical probability will always tell you one sequence is different from the other, due to the simple fact, you/we are trying to measure a set (but in theory, not guaranteed) outcome of 3 flags in 5 years.

If we were talking IN ISOLATION about only one of those three flags, then yes, the order of sequence is irrelevant, as every year, when measured in isolation you are only a 50/50 chance.

However when you add AND into the equation, you are now reliant on multiple scenarios to meet the required outcome, which mean the previous results in the sequence actually have relevance to the next result, simply due to the fact each individual result is part of an overall outcome.



I think I presented in an earlier post, there are 23 instances of teams winning at least 2 flags in succession, but only 16 instances of a WxW sequence. Which sort of supports the related contingency theory, don’t you think?

well it actually supports my mathematical probability argument to be honest... 2 flags in 3 years... with the start year being a winning flag.
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
83,538
40,075
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Let’s have a look at all the sequences of 3 flags in 5 years. Where one flag sits within 2 such sequences, eg Hwaks 88-89 can for a sequence with both the 86 flag and the 91 flag, I will just lay out the whole sequence. I will start each sequence the year before the first flag unless this would exclude the final flag or the sequence last longer than 5 years.

Carlton 1905-09 xWWWx

Collingwood 26-30 xWWWW

Melbourne 38-42 xWWWx

Essendon 46-50 WxxWW

Melbourne 55-60 WWWxWW

Carlton 68-72 WxWxW

Carlton 78-82 xWxWW

Hawthorn 86-91 WxWWxW

Brisbane 2000-2004 xWWWx

Geelong 2007-11 WxWxW

Hawthorn 2012-2016 xWWWx

Richmond 2016-2020 xWxWW



I am going to say here the two sequences of more than 4 flags within a 5 year window, Pies 27-30 and Demons 55-60 are on a different level to the 3 flag in 5 year teams, so leave them out of the discussion.

Let’s also exclude the only other team to achieve 4 flags in a 6 year span, the Hawks 86-91, as this is also on another level.

So the other 9 on the above list, we have:

xWWWx occurs 4 times.

WxWxW occurs 2 times

xWxWW occurs 2 times

WxxWW occurs 1 time

So of the 9 teams ever to win 3 flags within 5 seasons, and excluding the 3 teams who went on to win a 4th within 6 seasons, 4 have won their 3 flags consecutively and 5 have not won theirs consecutively. But easily the most common sequence is the 3 in succession.

If given 5 years to win 3 flags - which all the team under discussion have done, no more, no less - it is clearly no harder to win 3 in succession than in any other sequence. If it was, then we would not see the WWW being the most common sequence, it is as simple as that.

any combination of 4 flags is rarer. Most of those combinations of 3 could have been 4. For example brisbane 2004 Geelong 2008 Richmond 2018 hawthorn 2012

4 flags is better (obviously) and rarer than all the 3 flag combinations

in otherwords, you are being a bit economical with facts
 

Trav 20

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
9,428
7,358
16.4 100 - 1.1 7
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Dees
I am not going to go through it all again, but I did show on the other thread, that performance in lead up finals was a much stronger indicator of likely success in a Grand Final than performance in the home and away season. And the aim is to win Premierships, that is what the competition is. So I am not calling a team or player who dominates a home and away season better than a team or player who dominates a finals series, where that is the choice. To me that doesn’t make sense, because you get nothing for dominating home and away series. Brownlows and AA guernseys maybe.
Obviously, if a team is largely dominant in the H&A and falls over in finals then they're judged accordingly.

But if a team dominates in H&A and proceeds to do the same in finals then they're elevated over, say, Footscray 2016 for mine. That just makes sense. I rank our premiership year ahead of the Dog's 2016 and not just because of the finals dominance, whereas you're only taking into account finals.

I like Dan's thread where he ranks all premiership teams, which takes into account the season proper.

As I said, we'll agree to differ.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
any combination of 4 flags is rarer. Most of those combinations of 3 could have been 4. For example brisbane 2004 Geelong 2008 Richmond 2018 hawthorn 2012

4 flags is better (obviously) and rarer than all the 3 flag combinations

in otherwords, you are being a bit economical with facts

I can’t make sense of your post in relation to mine. Especially the statement I am being economical with the facts. You may need to explain further.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
3,889
10,793
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Obviously, if a team is largely dominant in the H&A and falls over in finals then they're judged accordingly.

But if a team dominates in H&A and proceeds to do the same in finals then they're elevated over, say, Footscray 2016 for mine. That just makes sense. I rank our premiership year ahead of the Dog's 2016 and not just because of the finals dominance, whereas you're only taking into account finals.

I like Dan's thread where he ranks all premiership teams, which takes into account the season proper.

As I said, we'll agree to differ.

Bulldogs in 2016 completed the most difficult set of finals tasks of any premier in my memory. So I rate them very highly and I struggle to see why anybody would rate them differently. They essentially won 3 away finals then the Grand Final with no home ground advantage. If you rate home and away form, look at the home and away credentials of the 4 teams they beat!