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

Which dynasty is the greatest?


  • Total voters
    378

Remove this Banner Ad

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
32,224
34,923
AFL Club
Geelong
So are you defining a 20-2 team who finishes runner-up and has a finals series reflective of an average runner-up as better than Melbourne 2021 who lost 4 games for the season because Melbourne lost a home and away game or two against teams that were no ultimate threat to them, and by pretty slim margins? Remember Melbourne essentially destroyed 3 separate opponents in the finals series and had no home advantage in any of those matches.

However crazy it may seem to judge teams on the few matches everyone knows you have to perform well in, it is by orders of magnitude more crazy to judge teams by by how many redundant home and away wins they have.


I wasn’t referring to Melbourne. I was just referring to any notion that merely winning a few games at the end of a season automatically makes a side as good overall as a side who achieves fundamentally the same thing but happened to win a lot more games beforehand.
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
32,224
34,923
AFL Club
Geelong
It is not a matter of ignoring 90% of “the” data set. It is more a matter of starting from the data that matters most and working back from there.

But I am sorry if two teams seem really close in performance I am not using a 10 point loss to 2021 Collingwood v a 170 point win over 2007 Richmond as the tie-breaker. That is just ludicrous.


Using one match is ludicrous I agree. Using 25 though might be advantageous.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Captain_Bender

Premiership Player
May 21, 2015
3,898
5,697
AFL Club
Richmond
It’s all very well to say that finals and
Only finals determine the quality of a side.

Finals and only finals determine what a side achieves. They don’t determine wholely and solely how good a side is, particularly in a debate that is focused around a group of sides who all won finals anyway. Unfair or not, the salient fact is this: it IS possible for a side to win a trophy after being average for most of a season.

Literally any team in the comp has great performances in them, sometimes a few in a row. You might find a stretch in a given season where a team in 11th-12th knocks off a couple of top four sides in a short space of time. It happens.

So yes obviously a team who knocks out 2-3 great games at season’s end is a deserving premier, no doubt about that. But there is an element of luck or timing to that. There is no luck in going 20-2 or 19-3 or something in a home and away season. That’s proof that you’re a very good football side
They call Geelong the Home and Away specialist for a reason
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
32,224
34,923
AFL Club
Geelong
They call Geelong the Home and Away specialist for a reason


Yes because in the context of this particular discussion we specialised in winning lots of home and away games to set is up for premierships.

Sorry but the discussion isn’t ‘which is the greatest dynasty, three triple premiership teams and Geelong 2012-2021’

Make another thread for that if you like
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I wasn’t referring to Melbourne. I was just referring to any notion that merely winning a few games at the end of a season automatically makes a side as good overall as a side who achieves fundamentally the same thing but happened to win a lot more games beforehand.

A few games at the end of the season? The ones that decide the whole competition you mean, those ones?

But taking your point more seriously, if teams are truly top class it will show out in the finals series. And normally over a number of finals series like 2,3,4 or 5. The Saints had one very strong home and away season and one decent one. And no compelling finals performances whatsoever.

Collingwood had one very strong home and away season, and one decent one. And one compelling finals series, even that contained a bit of a stumble in the GF. Melbourne 2021 did not look like stumbling at any material time.

These teams Geelong beat in 2009 and 2011 are not great teams. They are teams that had two largely strong seasons, before and after which they were not really in the mix. None of them had finals series anywhere near what the Demons have just produced. The only remarkable thing about either of these teams and I mean THE ONLY remarkable thing is they each produced one single home and away season of 20 wins and 2 losses. Neither of those seasons was franked with either a Premiership or by a season before or after that was anywhere near that level. Other teams in the same era like Cats 08 Eagles 2011 and Hawthorn 2011 also had and unusually high amount of wins for the positions they eventually finished in. Ok, two of those teams franked those seasons with deeds in several surrounding seasons, that is why they are rightly seen as great teams.

So I am sceptical of the quality of these sides like Saints 09 and Pies 11 being reflected in their respective pinnacle home and away seasons. Teams were seriously tanking in the era this is now a matter of record.
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
32,224
34,923
AFL Club
Geelong
A few games at the end of the season? The ones that decide the whole competition you mean, those ones?

But taking your point more seriously, if teams are truly top class it will show out in the finals series. And normally over a number of finals series like 2,3,4 or 5. The Saints had one very strong home and away season and one decent one. And no compelling finals performances whatsoever.

Collingwood had one very strong home and away season, and one decent one. And one compelling finals series, even that contained a bit of a stumble in the GF. Melbourne 2021 did not look like stumbling at any material time.

These teams Geelong beat in 2009 and 2011 are not great teams. They are teams that had two largely strong seasons, before and after which they were not really in the mix. None of them had finals series anywhere near what the Demons have just produced. The only remarkable thing about either of these teams and I mean THE ONLY remarkable thing is they each produced one single home and away season of 20 wins and 2 losses. Neither of those seasons was franked with either a Premiership or by a season before or after that was anywhere near that level. Other teams in the same era like Cats 08 Eagles 2011 and Hawthorn 2011 also had and unusually high amount of wins for the positions they eventually finished in. Ok, two of those teams franked those seasons with deeds in several surrounding seasons, that is why they are rightly seen as great teams.

So I am sceptical of the quality of these sides like Saints 09 and Pies 11 being reflected in their respective pinnacle home and away seasons. Teams were seriously tanking in the era this is now a matter of record.


Melbourne did look like stumbling - at half time in the grand final I wasn’t alone in thinking they were cactus. To their credit their second half was out of this world and completely reversed any notion of them losing

Simplifying st Kilda to not producing anything out of the ordinary aside from a decent home and away season is silly.

It takes 48 games and makes them absolutely redundant because Stephen Milne copped a bad bounce and Matthew Scarlett got his boot to a bouncing ball
 

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2002
40,313
47,307
AFL Club
Geelong
Please- an ounce of luck and they win in 2010 and 2009. A great side that deserved a flag.

Not really.

2009 - led at every change, then failed to score a goal in the final quarter. That's not bad luck.
2010 - obviously a great effort in a drawn Grand final. Beyond pitiful the following week. That's not bad luck either.

They were very good for those two years. But ultimately not good enough.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Based on margins?

No consideration of opposition?

Yes, the chief available objective measurement by which to compare one high order final against another.

If you want to introduce subjective measures, relying on judgement, then I’d want to be considering absolutely everything, finals form of opponents, full strength indicator of opponent, venue advantage/disadvantage, yes volume of wins and percentage for the season but more specifically performances in games that are likely to be stronger indicators.

But I have shown before that form in finals is a much better predictor of GF success than is home and away performance. We saw how more Grand Finals had been won by he team who won LESS home and away games of the two combatants over the last 20 years. So can one season throw up an anomalous finals series? Sure. Do 20 seasons throw up misleading trends? Much less likely.
 

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2002
40,313
47,307
AFL Club
Geelong
Very good points.

There are also a couple of other points for consideration:
1. Any team in the comp also can have an off day. Was the difference between Melbourne and the Doggies in the second half of the Grand Final indicative of the difference between the teams? Was the margin in the Doggies/Port Preliminary Final indicative of the difference between those teams in 2021?

2. Some teams match up well against other teams. I have no doubt that Collingwood in 2011 were the best team in the competition. They destroyed teams in the same fashion not seen since Essendon in 2000 (and indeed hasn't been seen since), whilst Geelong weren't as dominant, but matched up particularly well against Collingwood.

When you have a data set of 25 or 26 games to assess a team's performance, it is folly and indeed just plain wrong to completely ignore (in Meteoric Ruse's case) over 90% of that data set and consider only the final two matches of the season, when differentiating between teams who have won the same number of ultimate prizes.

They only finished 1 game behind Collingwood, with 19 wins and 3 losses. Included in that was a run of 13 straight wins to start the year, they had two successive 150+ point victories against Melbourne and Gold Coast, then tuned up for September by annihilating Collingwood by 96 points in the final round. Effortlessly brushed aside Hawthorn and West Coast before the Grand final. They may not have finished first after home and away, but they were very, very good that year.
 
Last edited:

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2002
40,313
47,307
AFL Club
Geelong
If you're comparing Melbourne 2021 and St. Kilda 2009....

Melbourne 17.5 wins, percentage of 130, and had to goal after the siren in round 23 to avoid finishing 4th.

St. Kilda 20 wins, percentage of 155, and lost two dead rubbers in rounds 21 and 22 after securing top spot.

Did someone say magnitudes of difference?

There's one other part to that. Finals.

2009 St.Kilda: 28 point win, 7 point win, 12 point loss.
2021 Melbourne: 33 point win, 83 point win, 74 point win.

The final result matters too. A lot.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Melbourne did look like stumbling - at half time in the grand final I wasn’t alone in thinking they were cactus. To their credit their second half was out of this world and completely reversed any notion of them losing

Simplifying st Kilda to not producing anything out of the ordinary aside from a decent home and away season is silly.

It takes 48 games and makes them absolutely redundant because Stephen Milne copped a bad bounce and Matthew Scarlett got his boot to a bouncing ball

I did say they did not look like stumbling at any material time. No team in their 3 finals got within 3 goals of them in any final term. That I think you would agree is very dominant stuff. Essentially under no realistic threat of losing in any final quarter.

Look at it another way. Melbourne’s 3/4 time scores v their opponents FINAL scores:

v Brisbane 9.12 v 9.6

v Cats 17.8 v 6.6

v Dogs 12.11 v 10.6.

OR….if you prefer,

Melbourne’s half time scores in their 3 finals amounted to 23.25 163.

Their opponent’s FULL TIME combined scores in those matches amounted to 25.18 168.

Melbourne scored almost the same amount and had 5 extra scoring shots to half time than the combination of their opponents scored for the whole matches.

Melbourne won 10 of their 12 1/4s in the finals series.

Even eliminate the Cats Preliminary Final from the picture.

Demons combined HT scores v Briz/Dogs FT scores was 14.19 v 19.12.

You could go on and on and on, but of course we don’t need to. The Demonance was almost complete. And of course we have already established they won the most games in the home and away season and finished on top of the table.

Nobody is selling me that St Kilda 2009-10 were good enough to do anything like that.
 
Last edited:

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
32,224
34,923
AFL Club
Geelong
I did say they did not look like stumbling at any material time. No team in their 3 finals got within 3 goals of them in any final term. That I think you would agree is very dominant stuff. Essentially under no realistic threat of losing in any final quarter.

Look at it another way. Melbourne’s 3/4 time scores v their opponents FINAL scores:

v Brisbane 9.12 v 9.6

v Cats 17.8 v 6.6

v Dogs 12.11 v 10.6.

OR….if you prefer,

Melbourne’s half time scores in their 3 finals amounted to 23.25 163.

Their opponent’s FULL TIME combined scores in those matches amounted to 25.18 168.

Melbourne scored the same amount and had 5 extra scoring shots to half time than the combination of their opponents scored for the whole matches.

Melbourne won 10 of their 12 1/4s in the finals series.

You could go on and on and on, but of course we don’t need to. The Demonance was almost complete. And of course we have already established they won the most games in the home and away season and finished on top of the table.

Nobody is selling me that St Kilda 2009-10 were good enough to do anything like that.

I’m not cheapening what Melbourne did. They were fantastic and proved themselves over the course of a season to be the best team in it.

The fact that two incredibly good sides JUST beat st Kilda doesn’t change the fact that their overall body of work in 09-10 probably shows that they were a side at least in with a chance of beating the Melbourne team of this year and the flag teams of many other seasons. A couple of near misses on grand final day doesn’t change that.

To cross codes with the analogy, and again this isn’t directed at Melbourne it’s just a general comment:

The fact that Brisbane in 2015 lost an NRL grand final because of some Kyle feldt brilliance and a Thurston field goal doesn’t inherently make them a worse team than the 2005 Wests Tigers for example who to me were one of the weaker premiers I’ve seen and went 14-10 in the regular season. Yeah they’ve got the silverware to show for it and good on them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
8,618
7,028
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
They only finished 1 game behind Collingwood, with 19 wins and 3 losses. Included in that was a run of 13 straight wins to start the year, they had two successive 150+ point victories against Melbourne and Gold Coast, then tuned up for September by annihilating Collingwood by 96 points in the final round. Effortlessly brushed aside Hawthorn and West Coast before the Grand final. They may not have finished first after home and away, but they were very, very good that year.
You bolded my comment 'Geelong weren't as dominant', but then go on to basically agree with me.

The final round match was a dead rubber, but it was instrumental in Geelong getting within one win and 10% of Collingwood, to bridge the gap on the ladder somewhat. During the season, Geelong had 4 wins by under a goal, and another 2 wins by under 2 goals. Of Collingwood's 20 home and away wins, only one of them was by under 3 goals - a 6 point win over Sydney.

So yes, Geelong were very, very good that year, but not as dominant as Collingwood.
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
32,224
34,923
AFL Club
Geelong
Not really.

2009 - led at every change, then failed to score a goal in the final quarter. That's not bad luck.
2010 - obviously a great effort in a drawn Grand final. Beyond pitiful the following week. That's not bad luck either.

They were very good for those two years. But ultimately not good enough.


No one is saying they were. But no
One you compare them to has had to back up a week after a drawn grand final either (aside from Collingwood obviously). And one poor quarter doesn’t negate a body of evidence that stretches over two full seasons
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I’m not cheapening what Melbourne did. They were fantastic and proved themselves over the course of a season to be the best team in it.

The fact that two incredibly good sides JUST beat st Kilda doesn’t change the fact that their overall body of work in 09-10 probably shows that they were a side at least in with a chance of beating the Melbourne team of this year and the flag teams of many other seasons. A couple of near misses on grand final day doesn’t change that.

To cross codes with the analogy, and again this isn’t directed at Melbourne it’s just a general comment:

The fact that Brisbane in 2015 lost an NRL grand final because of some Kyle feldt brilliance and a Thurston field goal doesn’t inherently make them a worse team than the 2005 Wests Tigers for example who to me were one of the weaker premiers I’ve seen and went 14-10 in the regular season. Yeah they’ve got the silverware to show for it and good on them.

For clarity here, Fadge kicked off this part of the discussion by compiling a long list of Premiers and non Premiers from the last 2 decades he rates better in their years than this Melbourne team of 2021.

Recency Bias.

Melbourne were a kick after the siren in round 23 away from finishing 4th FFS.

The following Grand Final teams were better than Melbourne 2021:
Essendon, Brisbane 2001
Brisbane 2002
Brisbane 2003
Brisbane, Port Adelaide 2004
Geelong 2007
Geelong, Hawthorn 2008
Geelong, St. Kilda 2009
Collingwood, St. Kilda 2010
Geelong, Collingwood 2011
Hawthorn, Sydney 2012
Hawthorn 2013
Hawthorn, Sydney 2014
Hawthorn 2015

We then enter the 'weak era' (Collingwood 2018 included).

As you can see, he doesn’t have Melbourne 2021 or by omission Richmond 2017-2020 in the best 21 teams of his century.

Do you agree with that, there have been at least 21 teams better than Melbourne 2021 and Richmond 2017-20 this century?

I have no problems conceding St Kilda 09 were a stronger than average losing GF team by some measures, +3 scoring shots in the Grand Final, very strong home and away season. But in certain respects I consider telling they are not better than an average losing Grand Finalist, lead-up finals form, performance in prior and subsequent seasons. Many other losing Grand Finalists are better on the first measure and some are on the second measure, Eagles 06, Hawks 12, Cats 08, Swans 06 to name 4 teams are better performed overall in previous and subsequent seasons. So they may be a better than average losing Grand Finalist, or they may not, it is unclear imo. Lead-up finals series apart, they definitely look a stronger than average losing Grand Finalist. But form in finals to me is THE key factor. St Kilda 2010 have no great claims to being a stronger than average losing Grand Finalist imo. They peaked about rd 17 2009 and nothing they did before or after those 17 rounds is distinguishable from any other losing Grand Finalist.
 

kozi

Varsity athlete
Oct 14, 2011
51,500
68,385
AFL Club
Richmond
Fun fact: Geelong and Richmond had an equal average winning margin of 56 points in their 3 GF's.

The averages get inflated by the 119 and 89 games respectively but doesn't make it any less impressive. An average win margin of 56 points over the course of 3 GF's is massive in the modern game. When the 4 dynasties are compared not enough weight is given to how dominant these two were on the big stage.
 

Captain_Bender

Premiership Player
May 21, 2015
3,898
5,697
AFL Club
Richmond
Fun fact: Geelong and Richmond had an equal average winning margin of 56 points in their 3 GF's.

The averages get inflated by the 119 and 89 games respectively but doesn't make it any less impressive. An average win margin of 56 points over the course of 3 GF's is massive in the modern game. When the 4 dynasties are compared not enough weight is given to how dominant these two were on the big stage.
If 2020 was a full length game, Richmond's winning margin would be even bigger
 

Romeoh1

Club Legend
Apr 27, 2021
1,323
1,730
AFL Club
Geelong
Not really.

2009 - led at every change, then failed to score a goal in the final quarter. That's not bad luck.
2010 - obviously a great effort in a drawn Grand final. Beyond pitiful the following week. That's not bad luck either.

They were very good for those two years. But ultimately not good enough.
I thought they were as good as us in 2009 but a handful of truly exceptional players meant we got the win on GF day. 5 minutes to go it was still even (and but for the incorrect call on the Hawkins goal, they would have been leading at that point)
2010 the ball bounces differently, they win.
They just weren’t flat track bullies- they didn’t get the job done but they were a very good team.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
If you're comparing Melbourne 2021 and St. Kilda 2009....

Melbourne 17.5 wins, percentage of 130, and had to goal after the siren in round 23 to avoid finishing 4th.

St. Kilda 20 wins, percentage of 155, and lost two dead rubbers in rounds 21 and 22 after securing top spot.

Did someone say magnitudes of difference?



Coming back to this, let’s compare the Saints 09 and Demons 21 seasons in a little more detail.



Table 1: Home & Away Saints 09 v Demons 21


TeamHome and Away W/LH & A %H & A 1/4s won/lostH & A home games v non-tenantsH & A Matches v fellow finalists H & A W/L v fellow finalistsTrue home games v fellow finalists

(Not against shared tenancy team)
True away games v fellow finalists

(On opponents home ground where you don’t share tenancy)
H & A % v fellow finalistsFinishing positions of those teams(from top) excluding own finishing positionH & A Matches v non finalistsFinishing positions of those teams(from bottom)
Melbourne 202117.5W 4.5L13165-1-345108W 2L44793/658

121%
1,1, 2, 3,3, 4, 5,5, 6, 7

Median = 3.5

Mean = 3.7
121, 2, 3, 4,4, 5,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Median = 5 from bottom

Mean = 5.3
Saints 200920W 2L15669-1-308109W 1L411034/736

141%
1, 2,2, 3, 4,4, 5, 6, 7, 7

Median = 4

Mean = 4.1
121,1, 2, 3, 4,4, 5,5, 6,6, 7, 8

Median = 4.5 from bottom

Mean = 4.3


Discussion about Table 1


St Kilda’s home and away season is more dominant. They had 2.5 extra wins, 20 v Melbourne’s 17.5. The Saints held a 9-1 win/loss record in the home and away season v other top 8 teams, whereas for the Demons this measure was slightly lower at 8-2. The Saints, which may surprise some, scored much more heavily in their games v other top 8 teams, but also conceded more than did the Demons. Overall the Saints percentage v other top 8 teams was a lot stronger 141 v 121.

Against this, although they both played 10 home and away games v finalists, Melbourne’s average finals opponent finished almost half a position higher on the ladder and whilst they both had 4 clear home ground advantages, Melbourne had to contend with an extra 3 away game disadvantage situations than did the Saints, 4 v 1.

I will largely ignore what occurred v the non-finalists, A) because I don’t think it is very relevant to a comparison like this, and B) because in 2009 there were 8 non-finalists while in 2021 there were 10, making comparisons around degree of difficulty a little more difficult to figure out.

In the home and away season though, the Saints had a demonstrably easier draw, both in terms of relative quality of opponent and also a reasonable edge in terms of venues. The Saints overall I would say still had clearly the better home and away season, perhaps just not as much better as you would first think by simply looking at W/L for the seasons. One other possibly quite pointless indicator, quarters won/lost shows the Saints just ahead over the season winning 4 extra quarters for the season and losing 4 less.


Table 2: Finals and Home and Away and Finals combined for Saints 09 v Demons 21…..

TeamFinals W/LFinals %Finals 1/4’s wonFinals opponents total H & A winsFinals opponents H & A PercentageGrand final opponent’s PF scoreline & marginFinals H/A Advantage/DisadvantageOverall season w/l record v fellow finalistsOverall season percentage v fellow finalists
Melbourne 20213-02131015, 16, 14 =45129, 133, 134116 v 45 = 71

interstate away
Nil11-21151/826

= 139
St Kilda 20092-1112915, 15, 18 = 48127, 123, 122120 v 47 = 73

partial MCG tenant v full MCG tenant
2 away disadvantages, against a partial tenant and a full tenant11-21242/923

= 135


Discussion of Table 2

Here we can see the Demons have had an enormously more dominant finals series. To the extent where their overall season performance versus other finalists goes from weaker that the Saints in the home and away fixtures to slightly stronger over the whole season. Both ended their respective seasons with a very impressive 11-2 record v fellow finalists, and combined this with percentages in the 130+ region, but Melbourne’s percentage in this sample ended up 4 points higher.

During the finals the Saints opponents had won an average of an extra 1 home and away match, but they all had percentages below the weakest % of the teams the Dees faced. So there wasn’t likely a lot of difference between them overall based on their season performances. The Saints had to contend with something the Demons did not have to contend with, a couple of finals with clear venue disadvantage. But overall, the 2021 Demons have outperformed the 2009 Saints in finals by a very sizeable distance.

Conclusions

Overall, in the 25 matches each team played the 09 Saints and 21 Demons appear vaguely similar in how good they were across the season. But the Demons have clearly played the sudden death matches at a much higher level, where the Saints played some less definitive home and away matches at a higher level. And those matches where the Demons outperformed the Saints are a much stronger indicator of a team’s true value than those games where the Saints outperformed the Demons.

Fadge This is where I would say that defining how good a team is in a season by their home and away performance only as you did in your post here is a very incomplete comparison.

I would simply say look at all of what is presented here, the whole season of the team in context, and explain now why you think St Kilda 09 is a better team than Melbourne 21….I cannot see any fair way you could rate the Saints a better team either in absolute or relative terms.
 
Last edited:

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
8,618
7,028
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Coming back to this, let’s compare the Saints 09 and Demons 21 seasons in a little more detail.



Table 1: Home & Away Saints 09 v Demons 21


TeamHome and Away W/LH & A %H & A 1/4s won/lostH & A home games v non-tenantsH & A Matches v fellow finalists H & A W/L v fellow finalistsTrue home games v fellow finalists

(Not against shared tenancy team)
True away games v fellow finalists

(On opponents home ground where you don’t share tenancy)
H & A % v fellow finalistsFinishing positions of those teams(from top) excluding own finishing positionH & A Matches v non finalistsFinishing positions of those teams(from bottom)
Melbourne 202117.5W 4.5L13165-1-345108W 2L44793/658

121%
1,1, 2, 3,3, 4, 5,5, 6, 7

Median = 3.5

Mean = 3.7
121, 2, 3, 4,4, 5,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Median = 5 from bottom

Mean = 5.3
Saints 200920W 2L15669-1-308109W 1L411034/736

141%
1, 2,2, 3, 4,4, 5, 6, 7, 7

Median = 4

Mean = 4.1
121,1, 2, 3, 4,4, 5,5, 6,6, 7, 8

Median = 4.5 from bottom

Mean = 4.3


Discussion about Table 1


St Kilda’s home and away season is more dominant. They had 2.5 extra wins, 20 v Melbourne’s 17.5. The Saints held a 9-1 win/loss record in the home and away season v other top 8 teams, whereas for the Demons this measure was slightly lower at 8-2. The Saints, which may surprise some, scored much more heavily in their games v other top 8 teams, but also conceded more than did the Demons. Overall the Saints percentage v other top 8 teams was a lot stronger 141 v 121.

Against this, although they both played 10 home and away games v finalists, Melbourne’s average finals opponent finished almost half a position higher on the ladder and whilst they both had 4 clear home ground advantages, Melbourne had to contend with an extra 3 away game disadvantage situations than did the Saints, 4 v 1.

I will largely ignore what occurred v the non-finalists, A) because I don’t think it is very relevant to a comparison like this, and B) because in 2009 there were 8 non-finalists while in 2021 there were 10, making comparisons around degree of difficulty a little more difficult to figure out.

In the home and away season though, the Saints had a demonstrably easier draw, both in terms of relative quality of opponent and also a reasonable edge in terms of venues. The Saints overall I would say still had clearly the better home and away season, perhaps just not as much better as you would first think by simply looking at W/L for the seasons. One other possibly quite pointless indicator, quarters won/lost shows the Saints just ahead over the season winning 4 extra quarters for the season and losing 4 less.


Table 2: Finals and Home and away and finals combined for Saints 09 v Demons 21…..

TeamFinals W/LFinals %Finals 1/4’s wonFinals opponents total H & A winsFinals opponents H & A PercentageGrand final opponent’s PF scoreline & marginFinals H/A Advantage/DisadvantageOverall season w/l record v fellow finalistsOverall season percentage v fellow finalists
Melbourne 20213-02131015, 16, 14 =45129, 133, 134116 v 45 = 71

interstate away
Nil11-21151/826

= 139
St Kilda 20092-1112915, 15, 18 = 48127, 123, 122120 v 47 = 73

partial MCG tenant v full MCG tenant
2 away disadvantages, against a partial tenant and a full tenant11-21242/923

= 135


Discussion of Table 2

Here we can see the Demons have had an enormously more dominant finals series. To the extent where their overall season performance versus other finalists goes from weaker that the Saints in the home and away fixtures to slightly stronger over the whole season. Both ended their respective seasons with a very impressive 11-2 record v fellow finalists, and combined this with percentages in the 130+ region, but Melbourne’s percentage in this sample ended up 4 points higher.

During the finals the Saints opponents had won an average of an extra 1 home and away match, but they all had percentages below the weakest % of the teams the Dees faced. So there wasn’t likely a lot of difference between them overall based on their season performances. The Saints had to contend with something the Demons did not have to contend with, a couple of finals with clear venue disadvantage. But overall, the 2021 Demons have outperformed the 2009 Saints in finals by a very sizeable distance.

Conclusions

Overall, in the 25 matches each team played the 09 Saints and 21 Demons appear vaguely similar in how good they were across the season. But the Demons have clearly played the sudden death matches at a much higher level, where the Saints played some less definitive home and away matches at a higher level. And those matches where the Demons outperformed the Saints are a much stronger indicator of a team’s true value than those games where the Saints outperformed the Demons.

Fadge This is where I would say that defining how good a team is in a season by their home and away performance only as you did in your post here is a very incomplete comparison.

I would simply say look at all of what is presented here, the whole season of the team in context, and explain now why you think St Kilda 09 is a better team than Melbourne 21….I cannot see any fair way you could rate the Saints a better team either in absolute or relative terms.
Reasonable analysis.

But you refuse to consider the relative strength of the finals opponents when discussing this.

You cannot simply look at margins.

St. Kilda played against one of the teams we are discussing in this thread - who happen to be the team that A LOT of neutrals consider to be the best of the four dynasty teams.

Who was the Geelong 2009 equivalent in the 2021 finals series that Melbourne played?

St. Kilda also played Collingwood in the 2009 finals series, a team who went on to win the 2010 premiership, and have a 20/2 2011 season before losing that year's Grand Final.

It is yet to be seen if there was a Collingwood 2009 equivalent in the 2021 finals series.

Brisbane 2021 may just be the Bulldogs 2009 equivalent - perenniel Preliminary Finalists but not quite good enough to go the whole way.

But we'll need to agree to disagree here - you assess it purely on numbers, whilst I put more of a qualitative spin on it.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Reasonable analysis.

But you refuse to consider the relative strength of the finals opponents when discussing this.

You cannot simply look at margins.

St. Kilda played against one of the teams we are discussing in this thread - who happen to be the team that A LOT of neutrals consider to be the best of the four dynasty teams.

Who was the Geelong 2009 equivalent in the 2021 finals series that Melbourne played?

St. Kilda also played Collingwood in the 2009 finals series, a team who went on to win the 2010 premiership, and have a 20/2 2011 season before losing that year's Grand Final.

It is yet to be seen if there was a Collingwood 2009 equivalent in the 2021 finals series.

Brisbane 2021 may just be the Bulldogs 2009 equivalent - perenniel Preliminary Finalists but not quite good enough to go the whole way.

But we'll need to agree to disagree here - you assess it purely on numbers, whilst I put more of a qualitative spin on it.

Why would you assume the St Kilda finals opponents were stronger in 2009 than the Demons finals opponents were in 2021 when they barely performed better across the season? In fact it is arguable that the Saints 3 finals opponents did not outperform the Demons finals opponents across the whole season.

So what actually makes the 3 finals opponents the Saints faced better? And if as you may be tempted to do we reduce it to saying well the Saints franked their great season by all but beating the great Cats team in one match, the Grand Final….. aren’t you then reducing the consideration of the finals series to one match, whilst on the other hand claiming a team whose best form comes in finals, such as Bulldogs 16, Tigers 17, 19 & 20, Demons 21 is exhibiting top end form over too short a period to be considered in the top 21 teams of the last 20 years?

Geelong 2009 would appear to have been stronger than anything the Demons faced in 2021 I have no problem with that, because every available way you can measure it indicates as much. But the Saints LOST to the Cats team, and it was one match. OK, it could have gone the other way, they were close on the day. But the Demons WON their Grand Final by 11 goals 8 behinds against a team who had just won their PF interstate away to what was thought of as a decent opponent and by a similarly big margin to what the Cats achieved in 2009.

If you want to consider the quality of the opponent based on the whole season, you should consider what they achieved over the whole season, and weigh it against what other teams achieved in other years. The truth is, in most recent years the Premiers have been beating a cluster of finals opponents as strongly performed as any beaten by the Premiers in your 2009-11 era. 2011 is about the only year that might be an exception but I am not convinced in reality that that was caused solely by the top 4 teams being so good, because the 4th team the Eagles won 17 games and had a percentage above 130, and they nearly lost a home final to the Blues, who by the way also had a percentage over 130.

All that aside, I think you would struggle to find much serious support for your assessment the 2009 Saints are better than the 2021 Demons.
 

Fadge

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 4, 2007
8,618
7,028
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Why would you assume the St Kilda finals opponents were stronger in 2009 than the Demons finals opponents were in 2021 when they barely performed better across the season? In fact it is arguable that the Saints 3 finals opponents did not outperform the Demons finals opponents across the whole season.
I've explained this previously. Because I take into account as much data as possible, I have considered not only what the respective teams achieved in 2009, but also what they achieved at around the same time. Collingwood were building into a dominant team, as can be seen from what they achieved in 2010 and 2011. The Cats record over the time speaks for itself, and as I said, many neutrals rate that team the best of the four dynasty teams.
So what actually makes the 3 finals opponents the Saints faced better? And if as you may be tempted to do we reduce it to saying well the Saints franked their great season by all but beating the great Cats team in one match, the Grand Final….. aren’t you then reducing the consideration of the finals series to one match, whilst on the other hand claiming a team whose best form comes in finals, such as Bulldogs 16, Tigers 17, 19 & 20, Demons 21 is exhibiting top end form over too short a period to be considered in the top 21 teams of the last 20 years?

Geelong 2009 would appear to have been stronger than anything the Demons faced in 2021 I have no problem with that, because every available way you can measure it indicates as much. But the Saints LOST to the Cats team, and it was one match. OK, it could have gone the other way, they were close on the day. But the Demons WON their Grand Final by 11 goals 8 behinds against a team who had just won their PF interstate away to what was thought of as a decent opponent and by a similarly big margin to what the Cats achieved in 2009.

If you want to consider the quality of the opponent based on the whole season, you should consider what they achieved over the whole season, and weigh it against what other teams achieved in other years. The truth is, in most recent years the Premiers have been beating a cluster of finals opponents as strongly performed as any beaten by the Premiers in your 2009-11 era. 2011 is about the only year that might be an exception but I am not convinced in reality that that was caused solely by the top 4 teams being so good, because the 4th team the Eagles won 17 games and had a percentage above 130, and they nearly lost a home final to the Blues, who by the way also had a percentage over 130.
Again, I like to use as much data is available.

The problem with minimising your data set to (primarily) the final two weeks of the season (Preliminary Finals and Grand Finals) is that the analysis is flawed. Your comment about Melbourne's Grand Final win of 74 points, against a team who beat their Preliminary Final opponent by a similar margin.... Do you honestly believe Melbourne were a 150 point better team than Port Adelaide in 2021? I don't.

Margins in single games can be very misleading. I can talk to the 2009 Qualifying Final between St. Kilda and Collingwood as a Collingwood supporter - we were never in that game. It was a dour struggle, we were 2 goals down at half time, 3 goals down at 3 quarter time, and lost by 5 goals. St. Kilda were comfortably the better side. Let's look at the 2021 Grand Final - Melbourne were paying what $3.50 half way through the 3rd quarter when the Bulldogs were 19 points ahead. Yes, Melbourne then went bang and blew the margin out by playing amazing football for the last 45 minutes of the game, but I know which game was in more doubt, for longer, when comparing the two matches.

Your comment about Carlton in 2011 - they certainly were a level (or a couple of levels) below the top 3 or 4 teams, based on the fact they went 0 and 7 against top 4 teams in that season. Yes, they had a good Semi-Final, but again a one-off game against a team who had thrown everything they had at Collingwood in the Qualifying Final the week prior.
 

Meteoric Rise

Premiership Player
Feb 4, 2008
4,745
12,832
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I've explained this previously. Because I take into account as much data as possible, I have considered not only what the respective teams achieved in 2009, but also what they achieved at around the same time. Collingwood were building into a dominant team, as can be seen from what they achieved in 2010 and 2011. The Cats record over the time speaks for itself, and as I said, many neutrals rate that team the best of the four dynasty teams.

Again, I like to use as much data is available.

The problem with minimising your data set to (primarily) the final two weeks of the season (Preliminary Finals and Grand Finals) is that the analysis is flawed. Your comment about Melbourne's Grand Final win of 74 points, against a team who beat their Preliminary Final opponent by a similar margin.... Do you honestly believe Melbourne were a 150 point better team than Port Adelaide in 2021? I don't.

Margins in single games can be very misleading. I can talk to the 2009 Qualifying Final between St. Kilda and Collingwood as a Collingwood supporter - we were never in that game. It was a dour struggle, we were 2 goals down at half time, 3 goals down at 3 quarter time, and lost by 5 goals. St. Kilda were comfortably the better side. Let's look at the 2021 Grand Final - Melbourne were paying what $3.50 half way through the 3rd quarter when the Bulldogs were 19 points ahead. Yes, Melbourne then went bang and blew the margin out by playing amazing football for the last 45 minutes of the game, but I know which game was in more doubt, for longer, when comparing the two matches.

Your comment about Carlton in 2011 - they certainly were a level (or a couple of levels) below the top 3 or 4 teams, based on the fact they went 0 and 7 against top 4 teams in that season. Yes, they had a good Semi-Final, but again a one-off game against a team who had thrown everything they had at Collingwood in the Qualifying Final the week prior.

This part of your post I have bolded troubles me.

So Collingwood 2009(15 wins, 122%, unimpressive finals series, smashed by Premier Cats, scraped home semi v 5th placed Crows - 14 win, 118% - by less than 1 goal, and in your words well held by Saints in the QF) you are rating a better team than say Bulldogs, Port and Lions 2021 who all had better percentages, all had better finals series and averaged as many home and away wins as Collingwood 2009….because the Pies were a better team in 2010 and 2011 than they were in 2009. 💁

What sort of logic is that? By that rationale Collingwood 2018 are better than Richmond 2017, 2019, 2020 because Collingwood beat a team in finals who were dominant in surrounding seasons and Richmond did not.

If margins in single games can be misleading….then why should we believe the result or margin of any match? The trouble with your selective application of this principle here, is the results and margins achieved by the Demons in the 2021 finals are shown not to be misleading, given they did it three times on the bounce v roughly similarly rated opposition. Port Adelaide PF 2007, yes we can say this is a case of a single result and margin being misleading because it is anomalous to all Port's previous form and the GF result. You cannot rightly say that about the 2021 Demons, the 2016 Bulldogs and the 17,19,20 Tigers. Almost all their finals performances look on a similar level across the finals series in which they played. You don’t have to rate the Demons 150 points ahead of Port Adelaide to say the Demons were way too good for every opponent they faced in the 2021 finals series.

Your repeated references to certain games teams played in being in doubt at certain stages of the match mean nothing. You are not selling me that Saints win in the QF 2009 v Collingwood is more impressive than the Dees win the in the 2021 GF because the Saints led by more at a particular stage of the 3rd term. What sort of insanity is that? The Saints lost the first term, had the same amount of scoring shots as their opponent at HT and led by less than the Demons did at 3/4 time. The Demons had more scoring shots than the Dogs at every break.

They led 6.4 v 4.6 at HT. They led by 9.7 v 6.8 at 3/4 time. And eventually won by by 28 points with +3 scoring shots after the game had not been secure at any break.

In the 2021 GF the Dees one non-dominant 1/4, the second, which they lost by 29 points but 4 scoring shots. They won the other 3 terms by 3.3, 5.2 and 8.2 and eventually won by 11.8. 19 scoring shots they won by, and the Saints by 3 scoring shots yet you are more impressed by the Saints efforts because Melbourne traded at $3.50 at some point of the 3rd term, and the Pies who the Saints beat went on to do better in subsequent years. 😂. That isn’t sane I am sorry Fadge.

You are having to do all these callisthenics with your logic because you are deciding what is true first then selecting the facts that fit the narrative. My advice is study the objective facts first, then apply your judgement, not the other way around.
 

Goggin Our Best

Norm Smith Medallist
May 23, 2011
6,114
9,165
sydney
AFL Club
Geelong
Coming back to this, let’s compare the Saints 09 and Demons 21 seasons in a little more detail.



Table 1: Home & Away Saints 09 v Demons 21


TeamHome and Away W/LH & A %H & A 1/4s won/lostH & A home games v non-tenantsH & A Matches v fellow finalists H & A W/L v fellow finalistsTrue home games v fellow finalists

(Not against shared tenancy team)
True away games v fellow finalists

(On opponents home ground where you don’t share tenancy)
H & A % v fellow finalistsFinishing positions of those teams(from top) excluding own finishing positionH & A Matches v non finalistsFinishing positions of those teams(from bottom)
Melbourne 202117.5W 4.5L13165-1-345108W 2L44793/658

121%
1,1, 2, 3,3, 4, 5,5, 6, 7

Median = 3.5

Mean = 3.7
121, 2, 3, 4,4, 5,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Median = 5 from bottom

Mean = 5.3
Saints 200920W 2L15669-1-308109W 1L411034/736

141%
1, 2,2, 3, 4,4, 5, 6, 7, 7

Median = 4

Mean = 4.1
121,1, 2, 3, 4,4, 5,5, 6,6, 7, 8

Median = 4.5 from bottom

Mean = 4.3


Discussion about Table 1


St Kilda’s home and away season is more dominant. They had 2.5 extra wins, 20 v Melbourne’s 17.5. The Saints held a 9-1 win/loss record in the home and away season v other top 8 teams, whereas for the Demons this measure was slightly lower at 8-2. The Saints, which may surprise some, scored much more heavily in their games v other top 8 teams, but also conceded more than did the Demons. Overall the Saints percentage v other top 8 teams was a lot stronger 141 v 121.

Against this, although they both played 10 home and away games v finalists, Melbourne’s average finals opponent finished almost half a position higher on the ladder and whilst they both had 4 clear home ground advantages, Melbourne had to contend with an extra 3 away game disadvantage situations than did the Saints, 4 v 1.

I will largely ignore what occurred v the non-finalists, A) because I don’t think it is very relevant to a comparison like this, and B) because in 2009 there were 8 non-finalists while in 2021 there were 10, making comparisons around degree of difficulty a little more difficult to figure out.

In the home and away season though, the Saints had a demonstrably easier draw, both in terms of relative quality of opponent and also a reasonable edge in terms of venues. The Saints overall I would say still had clearly the better home and away season, perhaps just not as much better as you would first think by simply looking at W/L for the seasons. One other possibly quite pointless indicator, quarters won/lost shows the Saints just ahead over the season winning 4 extra quarters for the season and losing 4 less.


Table 2: Finals and Home and Away and Finals combined for Saints 09 v Demons 21…..

TeamFinals W/LFinals %Finals 1/4’s wonFinals opponents total H & A winsFinals opponents H & A PercentageGrand final opponent’s PF scoreline & marginFinals H/A Advantage/DisadvantageOverall season w/l record v fellow finalistsOverall season percentage v fellow finalists
Melbourne 20213-02131015, 16, 14 =45129, 133, 134116 v 45 = 71

interstate away
Nil11-21151/826

= 139
St Kilda 20092-1112915, 15, 18 = 48127, 123, 122120 v 47 = 73

partial MCG tenant v full MCG tenant
2 away disadvantages, against a partial tenant and a full tenant11-21242/923

= 135


Discussion of Table 2

Here we can see the Demons have had an enormously more dominant finals series. To the extent where their overall season performance versus other finalists goes from weaker that the Saints in the home and away fixtures to slightly stronger over the whole season. Both ended their respective seasons with a very impressive 11-2 record v fellow finalists, and combined this with percentages in the 130+ region, but Melbourne’s percentage in this sample ended up 4 points higher.

During the finals the Saints opponents had won an average of an extra 1 home and away match, but they all had percentages below the weakest % of the teams the Dees faced. So there wasn’t likely a lot of difference between them overall based on their season performances. The Saints had to contend with something the Demons did not have to contend with, a couple of finals with clear venue disadvantage. But overall, the 2021 Demons have outperformed the 2009 Saints in finals by a very sizeable distance.

Conclusions

Overall, in the 25 matches each team played the 09 Saints and 21 Demons appear vaguely similar in how good they were across the season. But the Demons have clearly played the sudden death matches at a much higher level, where the Saints played some less definitive home and away matches at a higher level. And those matches where the Demons outperformed the Saints are a much stronger indicator of a team’s true value than those games where the Saints outperformed the Demons.

Fadge This is where I would say that defining how good a team is in a season by their home and away performance only as you did in your post here is a very incomplete comparison.

I would simply say look at all of what is presented here, the whole season of the team in context, and explain now why you think St Kilda 09 is a better team than Melbourne 21….I cannot see any fair way you could rate the Saints a better team either in absolute or relative terms.
What you have written and concluded is basically accurate

However the more you read it - the more you could logically argue - that if want a total fair system - to arrive with a bona fide Champion team each year - then each team should play each other twice - home and away like the EPL

Now in 2009 StKilda did win their 1st 20 games in a row - which is an outstanding effort and i am certain if it had of been an EPL system - they would have won all 22 - they were bored - and there was no reward for winning the final 2 games

As ive posted previously - im not comfotable at all with Adelaides 2 flags - where each season they only won 13 games - that is just over 50% - yet they are the Champion team each year

Imagine the EPL - West Ham finish 4th to 6th - miles below Manchester City in games won - yet they eliminate them in one knockout game

Playing everyone twice home and away is the fairest system - you just have to front up each week and continue to win games