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

[Meteoric Rise]

What a strange interpretation to what I said.

The reigning premier remains so until a new premier is crowned. A home and away season win against the premier doesn't make that team the new premier (there would be a new premier every week if that were the case, including bottom 4 sides). They only become so when they win the premiership (It's also the same in your analogy - an imperial leader may lose battles or be away from his throne during his rulership but until there is a new imperial leader that takes over - his reign - and by extension the dynasty - remains). (Hell, extending the analogy of imperial dynasties further, multiple times there were separate dynasties by the same family. Once the dynasty was broken - it was no longer the same dynasty anymore - even when they came back to rule again. When they did so and a succession of rulership recurred, it became a dynasty again).

Same with your 8 premierships in 9 seasons example - that would be 'dynastic' for the period(s) they maintained the premiership. By virtue of those results they would at least have to have 1 (and likely 2) clear dynasties.

This is the problem with making up your mind X team has the best dynasty and only after you have decided this you start considering the facts. As we have seen from Fudge here, you need to start doing callisthenics with the facts presented by others in order to protect your position.

Fadge Better to simply say what the four teams achieved are all defined as dynasties by the thread question. Then you only have the Hawks extra flag, the fact they beat better performed finals teams in their Grand Finals, the facts Brisbane won finals in more consecutive years and had to overcome playing Grand Finals and other finals on their opponent’s home ground and the fact Richmond beat better performed finals teams in their Grand Finals to overcome in order to get the Cats out of the wooden spoon dynasty position, let alone get them to the top. Oh, and the Tigers like the Lions also did the opponent’s home venue Prelim-GF winning double in 2020, as the Gabba was Geelong’s preferred home ground at the time. Where the Tigers preferred ground was Metricon.

But against that I guess there is that the Cats were the best at winning home and away games at Pussy Paddock and had 27 genuine bona fide All Australian players in just one of their seasons alone.

 

[PhatBoy]

Being the best Home and Away team doesnt matter if there is a Finals series. Being the best Finals series team by winning the Grand Final is what matters.

But you know this. You are just trolling, while PB is just desperate for anyone other than a Geelong fan to think that 3 in 5 is somehow better than 3 in 4 or 3 in a row.

Ah yes the old conspiracy: ‘you’re only saying that because.’

*en hell is that literally all anyone can be bothered trotting out in this *hole of a forum?

 

[HairyO]

Ah yes the old conspiracy: ‘you’re only saying that because.’

ducken hell is that literally all anyone can be bothered trotting out in this duckhole of a forum?

No, there are 40-odd pages of discussions of which the bulk is most people saying Brisbane, many saying Hawthorn, a few non-Richmond supporters saying Richmond and basically only Geelong supporters saying Geelong - because VIBE.

There is a healthy scattering of mockery of Geelong supporters because simply put they are wrong. There are strong arguments to be made for Brisbane, Hawthorn and Richmond. There are literally none for Geelong. Other than VIBE.

 

[PhatBoy]

This is the problem with making up your mind X team has the best dynasty and only after you have decided this you start considering the facts. As we have seen from Fudge here, you need to start doing callisthenics with the facts presented by others in order to protect your position.

Fadge Better to simply say what the four teams achieved are all defined as dynasties by the thread question. Then you only have the Hawks extra flag, the fact they beat better performed finals teams in their Grand Finals, the facts Brisbane won finals in more consecutive years and had to overcome playing Grand Finals and other finals on their opponent’s home ground and the fact Richmond beat better performed finals teams in their Grand Finals to overcome in order to get the Cats out of the wooden spoon dynasty position, let alone get them to the top. Oh, and the Tigers like the Lions also did the opponent’s home venue Prelim-GF winning double in 2020, as the Gabba was Geelong’s preferred home ground at the time. Where the Tigers preferred ground was Metricon.

But against that I guess there is that the Cats were the best at winning home and away games at Pussy Paddock and had 27 genuine bona fide All Australian players in just one of their seasons alone.

Better performed finals teams?

Is that even a thing?

Brisbane beat one side that won a flag.

Geelong beat one side that won a flag, and another who had won a flag 3 seasons earlier, and another who would draw a grand final a season later.

Richmond beat a team who hasn’t won a flag or played a grand final in 20 seasons prior, a team who has become famous precisely for NOT being a good finals side, and a team
who didn’t even exist 7 years earlier, much less have any finals pedigree.

Hawthorn beat a reigning premier, a team who had not and still hasn’t won anything, and a side who at that stage had not fired a decent finals shot for a decade.

If ‘quality of finals level opposition’ is the hill you’re choosing to die on, it will be a very brief last stand.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Being the best Home and Away team doesnt matter if there is a Finals series. Being the best Finals series team by winning the Grand Final is what matters.

But you know this. You are just trolling, while PB is just desperate for anyone other than a Geelong fan to think that 3 in 5 is somehow better than 3 in 4 or 3 in a row.

That is the saddest part of it GH. I don’t think Fudge is trolling. He needs to believe Geelong were the best dynasty team because it makes Collingwood’s 16 month run at impersonating a quality team more impressive. And PJays will be along soon in support to ensure the standing of his Saints as the best team ever to have as few as one finals win against a team who won more than 15 home and away games - and that by 4 points with less scoring shots - in their withering run of about the first 19 games of 2009 impersonating a genuine gun team.

So you see, neither PB, Fudge nor Pjays are trolls, they are diehard supporters of their favourite teams’ legacies. All motivated by the same thing at the end of the day.

 

[PhatBoy]

No, there are 40-odd pages of discussions of which the bulk is most people saying Brisbane, many saying Hawthorn, a few non-Richmond supporters saying Richmond and basically only Geelong supporters saying Geelong - because VIBE.

There is a healthy scattering of mockery of Geelong supporters because simply put they are wrong. There are strong arguments to be made for Brisbane, Hawthorn and Richmond. There are literally none for Geelong. Other than VIBE.

I’m yet to see a single coherent argument from a hawks or tigers fan as to why we are definitively wrong. Brisbane has easily the best case beyond ‘we won another flag five years earlier.’

The only argument anyone has made that ISNT ‘because vibe’ for Hawthorn or Richmond is the notion that consecutivity means something.

Argue the actual events that took place and the quality of the teams instead of this half arsed ‘you’re only saying this because of who you support.’

It’s a cop out and it’s stupid.

 

[PhatBoy]

That is the saddest part of it GH. I don’t think Fudge is trolling. He needs to believe Geelong were the best dynasty team because it makes Collingwood’s 16 month run at impersonating a quality team more impressive. And PJays will be along soon in support to ensure the standing of his Saints as the best team ever to have as few as one finals win against a team who won more than 15 home and away games - and that by 4 points with less scoring shots - in their withering run of about the first 19 games of 2009 impersonating a genuine gun team.

So you see, neither PB, Fudge nor Pjays are trolls, they are diehard supporters of their favourite teams’ legacies. All motivated by the same thing at the end of the day.

Oh good another tinsel eating expression of ‘people can only hold this view because they want it to make such and such look such and such.’

F***ing pathetic.

 

[HairyO]

I’m yet to see a single coherent argument from a hawks or tigers fan as to why we are definitively wrong.

Because you refuse to accept that teams winning a repeated number of flags in a row is better than winning them from time-to-time. Particularly in an age of AFL equalisation.

The only coherency issue is with you.

 

[Rabish Binney]

It's Brisbane.

End thread.

 

[PhatBoy]

Because you refuse to accept that teams winning a repeated number of flags in a row is better than winning them from time-to-time. Particularly in an age of AFL equalisation.

The only coherency issue is with you.

Because I don’t agree. What makes back to back birdies in a game of golf exponentially better than birdieing 1 and 3.

No one has provided a definitive explanation as to why it’s better beyond ‘it just is.’


If the four sides were pitched into an imaginary tournament against one another do you think Steve Johnson is going to take a shot on goal and shank it because his opponent won consecutive grand finals and his team didn’t.

 

[PhatBoy]

The funniest part about this is, when the EXACT same discussion comes up in rugby league, I should just pull the ‘roosters went back to back, Melbourne didn’t’ when people debate who’s had the better eras or dynasties. I am every bit as much a Roosters tragic as I am a Cats one.

No NRL team had legitimately gone back to back in a unified competition since 1993 before the Roosters did it in 2019. It didn’t make us better than Melbourne who sandwiched our titles with two of their own and lost a grand final in between.

 

[Fadge]

No, there are 40-odd pages of discussions of which the bulk is most people saying Brisbane, many saying Hawthorn, a few non-Richmond supporters saying Richmond and basically only Geelong supporters saying Geelong - because VIBE.

There is a healthy scattering of mockery of Geelong supporters because simply put they are wrong. There are strong arguments to be made for Brisbane, Hawthorn and Richmond. There are literally none for Geelong. Other than VIBE.

Where are the non-Richmond supporters saying Richmond?

A poster did the analysis of posters who didn't vote for their own team in the original (and better) thread, and concluded:
1. Brisbane (were the clear number 1);
2. Geelong
3. Hawthorn
........
........
I don't recall any non-Richmond supporters voted for Richmond.

If you review the original thread, there are many and varied reasons as to why many non-Geelong supporting posters conclude Geelong were Number 1.

I'm sorry if you're offended by that.

Back onto Hawthorn of the 80's - that was a fabulous 2 year dynasty, wasn't it?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Better performed finals teams?

Is that even a thing?

Brisbane beat one side that won a flag.

Geelong beat one side that won a flag, and another who had won a flag 3 seasons earlier, and another who would draw a grand final a season later.

Richmond beat a team who hasn’t won a flag or played a grand final in 20 seasons prior, a team who has become famous precisely for NOT being a good finals side, and a team
who didn’t even exist 7 years earlier, much less have any finals pedigree.

Hawthorn beat a reigning premier, a team who had not and still hasn’t won anything, and a side who at that stage had not fired a decent finals shot for a decade.

If ‘quality of finals level opposition’ is the hill you’re choosing to die on, it will be a very brief last stand.

I was referring to the instant finals form of the opponents PB, but I am sure you knew that.

“Super losers” St Kilda & Collingwood….

2009 Saints lead up finals:

12.8 v Collingwood(15 wins 122%) 7.10 by 28 points with +3 scoring shots

9.6 v Bulldogs(15 wins 122%) 7.11 by 7 points with -3 s/s


2011 Collingwood lead up finals:

12.10 v Eagles(17 wins 130%) 9.8 in Melbourne by 20 points + 5 s/s

10.8 v Hawthorn(18 wins 144%) 9.11 by 3 points -2 s/s


Compare with what Hawks faced(apart from Geelong 08)


2013 Fremantle beat:

12.15 v Geelong(18 wins 136%) 9.18 at Geelong by 15 points level s/s

14.15 v Sydney(15.5 wins 135%) 11.8 by 25 points +10 s/s


2014 Sydney

13.15 v Fremantle(16 wins 130%) 10.9 by 24 points +9 s/s

19.22 v North(14 wins 117%) 9.11 by 71 points +21 s/s


2015 Eagles

14.12 v Hawthorn(16 wins 158%) 9.10 by 32 points +7 s/s

10.20 v North(13 wins 106% - tanked final game so in reality 14 wins 110%) 7.13 by 25 points, 10 s/s


Then of course in 2017 Richmond faced an Adelaide off 2 red hot finals performances against teams as well performed as what the Saints stumbled over in 2009. And a similar story in 2020 v a Geelong team who came into the GF on the back of two extremely dominant wins - one against a very well performed team.

Geelong’s opponents, in 2009 the Saints had one moderate and one tight win against mediocre performed finals teams. The Saints form was weak for a Grand Finalist. 2011 Geelong’s GF opponent Collingwood had played better performed teams, but fell in v Hawks and had a moderate interstate home win v Eagles.


Overall I would rate the finals form of all the above losing Grand finalists roughly in this order:

1. Fremantle 2013 - had the most impressive wins v the second strongest pair of opponents
2. Collingwood 2011 - strongest opponents but weakest wins
3. Eagles 2015 - one very strong win, one decent win v weaker oppo
4. Saints 2009 - weakest opponent/margin/scoring shot mixture by far


Geelong 2020 and Adelaide 2017 both fit in well above St Kilda 2009, after that it gets debatable with all of the other positions for a variety of reasons.


But the Hawks have definitely played against Grand Finalists with stronger finals form overall than the Cats did.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Oh good another tinsel eating expression of ‘people can only hold this view because they want it to make such and such look such and such.’

F***ing pathetic.

I love it when you go all nose out of joint on me PB.

I was only defending your Cat sycophant super era bedfellows from allegations of insincere posting, in short, being trolls.

 

[Fadge]

I was referring to the instant finals form of the opponents PB, but I am sure you knew that.

“Super losers” St Kilda & Collingwood….

2009 Saints lead up finals:

12.8 v Collingwood(15 wins 122%) 7.10 by 28 points with +3 scoring shots

9.6 v Bulldogs(15 wins 122%) 7.11 by 7 points with -3 s/s


2011 Collingwood lead up finals:

12.10 v Eagles(17 wins 130%) 9.8 in Melbourne by 20 points + 5 s/s

10.8 v Hawthorn(18 wins 144%) 9.11 by 3 points -2 s/s


Compare with what Hawks faced(apart from Geelong 08)


2013 Fremantle beat:

12.15 v Geelong(18 wins 136%) 9.18 at Geelong by 15 points level s/s

14.15 v Sydney(15.5 wins 135%) 11.8 by 25 points +10 s/s


2014 Sydney

13.15 v Fremantle(16 wins 130%) 10.9 by 24 points +9 s/s

19.22 v North(14 wins 117%) 9.11 by 71 points +21 s/s


2015 Eagles

14.12 v Hawthorn(16 wins 158%) 9.10 by 32 points +7 s/s

10.20 v North(13 wins 106% - tanked final game so in reality 14 wins 110%) 7.13 by 25 points, 10 s/s


Then of course in 2017 Richmond faced an Adelaide off 2 red hot finals performances against teams as well performed as what the Saints stumbled over in 2009. And a similar story in 2020 v a Geelong team who came into the GF on the back of two extremely dominant wins - one against a very well performed team.

Geelong’s opponents, in 2009 the Saints had one moderate and one tight win against mediocre performed finals teams. The Saints form was weak for a Grand Finalist. 2011 Geelong’s GF opponent Collingwood had played better performed teams, but fell in v Hawks and had a moderate interstate home win v Eagles.


Overall I would rate the finals form of all the above losing Grand finalists roughly in this order:

1. Fremantle 2013 - had the most impressive wins v the second strongest pair of opponents
2. Collingwood 2011 - strongest opponents but weakest wins
3. Eagles 2015 - one very strong win, one decent win v weaker oppo
4. Saints 2009 - weakest opponent/margin/scoring shot mixture by far


Geelong 2020 and Adelaide 2017 both fit in well above St Kilda 2009, after that it gets debatable with all of the other positions for a variety of reasons.


But the Hawks have definitely played against Grand Finalists with stronger finals form overall than the Cats did.

Yes, one can only form this conclusion by completing ignoring 85% of the available data.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes, one can only form this conclusion by completing ignoring 85% of the available data.

What would that 85% of available date be old fudgey wudgey?

 

[Fadge]

What would that 85% of available date be old fudgey wudgey?

Each Premier plays 25 or 26 games in a season.

You choose to ignore 22 of them.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Each Premier plays 25 or 26 games in a season.

You choose to ignore 22 of them.

You might want to keep up with the conversation. I was talking about the instant finals form of the respective dynasty teams’ Grand Final opponents. Why would I consider home and away form in that, other than the way I did, listing the home and away wins and % of their finals opponents?

Are you sure you didn’t just want to get me missing 85% of the data into the conversation somehow? You know, so you just jammed it in there, in case it meant something?

Hints for debate participation:

1 follow conversation
2 respond to what is actually being said
3 move from the facts to a logical conclusion, not from jumped-to conclusions to twisting facts around corners to support said conclusions.

 

[PhatBoy]

You might want to keep up with the conversation. I was talking about the instant finals form of the respective dynasty teams’ Grand Final opponents. Why would I consider home and away form in that, other than the way I did, listing the home and away wins and % of their finals opponents?

Are you sure you didn’t just want to get me missing 85% of the data into the conversation somehow? You know, so you just jammed it in there, in case it meant something?

Hints for debate participation:

1 follow conversation
2 respond to what is actually being said
3 move from the facts to a logical conclusion, not from jumped-to conclusions to twisting facts around corners to support said conclusions.

Port Adelaide beat their prelim opponent by 87 points a week before we beat them by 119

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Port Adelaide beat their prelim opponent by 87 points a week before we beat them by 119

Was the form franked in any way?

 

[Fadge]

Port Adelaide beat their prelim opponent by 87 points a week before we beat them by 119

Shhhhhhh.

Facts, good story, and all that...

I actually like how he used Geelong 2013, with their 18-4 home and away record, as evidence of strong finals form for Fremantle given they beat a strong finals opponent in Geelong, 6 years after their first 'dynasty' flag.

Where were the other dynasty teams 6 years after their first dynasty flag?

 

[Fadge]

Was the form franked in any way?

It may have been if they hadn't run into Geelong the following week.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Shhhhhhh.

Facts, good story, and all that...

I actually like how he used Geelong 2013, with their 18-4 home and away record, as evidence of strong finals form for Fremantle given they beat a strong final opponent in Geelong, 6 years after their first 'dynasty' flag.

Where were the other dynasty teams 6 years after their first dynasty flag?

Does being a relatively strong team for a beaten minor finalist make you a better dynasty team?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It may have been if they hadn't run into Geelong the following week.

Supposition is not fact.

 

[adammania9]

Backing up is much harder. Worse draft, tougher draw, and an AFL that doesnt want crowds tiring of the same team winning so they make it harder. Equalisation makes it very hard.

I reckon a few Tigers fans think this now, though would have mocked it when Hawks fans said it 8 years ago.

Yeah again, those just aren’t very strong supporting reasons