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

[Trav 20]

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!

Probably the weakest GF team I can remember.

We'll agree to differ.

I acknowledge their effort, btw, but just don't rate the side.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

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.



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.





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

The highlighted part of your response here I am struggling to understand what you are saying or arguing. Are you arguing that a team who wins 3 consecutive flags only in a 5 year period has achieved something that is more difficult to achieve than any available sequence of 3 non-consecutive flags within a 5 year period? If so that is just straight out wrong, imo.

Within any 5 year period you have 3 possible combinations of 3 consecutive flags:

xWWWx
WWWxx
xxWWW

You have the following 8 combinations available to win 3 non-consecutive flags within a given 5 year period:

xWxWW
xWWxx
xWWxW
WxWWx
WxWxW
WxxWW
WWxWx
WWxxW

So it is deceptive this. You look at the group of 3 consecutive flag sequences there are only 3 available, whilst(if I have this right) there are 8 combinations available for non-consecutive flags. So it would make you think achieving the 3 flags consecutively is harder than achieving 3 flags non-consecutively.

People are claiming the 3 consecutive is better BECAUSE of the sequence.

But in this debate each team whether winning 3 consecutively or non-consecutively achieves one of the 11 individual sequences. It is very easy to tell none of the sequences are of greater value than the others because you get awarded 3 Premierships no matter what order you win them in. It is also quite instructive in terms of degree of difficulty that - probably due to the related contingency effect of football teams and finite high performance windows, winning the 3 consecutively is more common by a distance than any other single combination.

This is why we see of the 12 times a team won at least 3 flags within a 5 year window, 6 of those involved consecutive sequences and only 6 did not. This is despite the non-consecutive winners having 8 possible sequences and the consecutive ones having only 3 possible sequences.

If you say to me that WWWxx, xWWWx or xxWWW is harder than any other sequence of 3 flags in 5 years, then I would simply say explain why. Preferably without reference to “mental strength” “being hunted” or any other cliche that can equally be applied to any other sequence of 3 Premierships within a 5 year span.

Is it more likely to win 3 flags in a 5 year window non-consecutively rather than consecutively? Possibly, that is an argument between the related contingency effect versus the extra combinations available to win non-consecutively, 8 v 3.

Is it more difficult or less likely to win 3 flags consecutively only within a 5 year span than to achieve the individual sequence that say Geelong did by going WxWxW? Not a single chance in hell that is true. There is no evidence to support it, it does not make mathematical sense, nor does it make sense when you consider all of the non-mathematical factors logically, and it makes even less sense when you study the frequency of these things occurring over 125 years of history.

 

[PhatBoy]

To add some context my stance on this because I get the impression that as soon as a cats fan makes an argument like mine they are told they’re only doing it because of their allegiance.

The only sporting teams I love as much as or close to how much I love the cats, are the roosters and the West Indies.

The roosters became the first team to win back to back nrl titles in a unified comp for 25 years in 2019.


Either side of our premierships Melbourne won 2017 and 2020. They were also runners up in 2018.

I don’t think the roosters ‘dynasty’ over that period was better. I think our side played the best footy I guess but if I’m looking for a point of difference I’m not going to go to sequentialism in order to do it

 

[Pessimistic]

The highlighted part of your response here I am struggling to understand what you are saying or arguing. Are you arguing that a team who wins 3 consecutive flags only in a 5 year period has achieved something that is more difficult to achieve than any available sequence of 3 non-consecutive flags within a 5 year period? If so that is just straight out wrong, imo.

Within any 5 year period you have 3 possible combinations of 3 consecutive flags:

xWWWx
WWWxx
xxWWW

You have the following 8 combinations available to win 3 non-consecutive flags within a given 5 year period:

xWxWW
xWWxx
xWWxW
WxWWx
WxWxW
WxxWW
WWxWx
WWxxW

So it is deceptive this. You look at the group of 3 consecutive flag sequences there are only 3 available, whilst(if I have this right) there are 8 combinations available for non-consecutive flags. So it would make you think achieving the 3 flags consecutively is harder than achieving 3 flags non-consecutively.

People are claiming the 3 consecutive is better BECAUSE of the sequence.

But in this debate each team whether winning 3 consecutively or non-consecutively achieves one of the individual sequences. It is very easy to tell none of the sequences are of greater value than the others because you get awarded 3 Premierships no matter what order you win them in. It is also quite instructive in terms of degree of difficulty that - probably due to the related contingency effect of football teams and finite high performance windows, winning the 3 consecutively is more common by a distance than any other single combination.

This is why we see of the 12 times a team won at least 3 flags within a 5 year window, 6 of those involved consecutive sequences and only 6 did not. This is despite the non-consecutive winners having 8 possible sequences and the consecutive ones having only 3 possible sequences.

If you say to me that WWWxx, xWWWx or xxWWW is harder than any other sequence of 3 flags in 5 years, then I would simply say explain why. Preferably without reference to “mental strength” “being hunted” or any other cliche that can equally be applied to any other sequence of 3 Premierships within a 5 year span.

Is it more likely to win 3 flags in a 5 year window non-consecutively rather than consecutively? Possibly, that is an argument between the related contingency effect versus the extra combinations available to win non-consecutively, 8 v 3.

Is it more difficult or less likely to win 3 flags consecutively only within a 5 year span than to achieve the individual sequence that say Geelong did by going WxWxW? Not a single chance in hell that is true. There is no evidence to support it, it does not make mathematical sense, nor does it make sense when you consider all of the non-mathematical factors logically, and it makes even less sense when you study the frequency of these things occurring over 125 years of history.

explain 2008 when there’s arguments geelong achieved one of the best H&A seasons ever. If they had won that premiership making four out of five it would be both a better and a more rare achievement

they aren’t random occurrences like a roulette wheel. Massively flawed thinking

 

[Hank Heavenly]

The highlighted part of your response here I am struggling to understand what you are saying or arguing. Are you arguing that a team who wins 3 consecutive flags only in a 5 year period has achieved something that is more difficult to achieve than any available sequence of 3 non-consecutive flags within a 5 year period? If so that is just straight out wrong, imo.

No.... I was responding to your claim around WxWxW vs a combination that includes multiple wins in the sequence.

I have provided the maths behind it, included required winning % to achieve the parameter of 3 in 5...

And to be honest, all you have done is dance around it with long winded answers and misrepresentation of the position I was making.

If you either don't want to understand the logic/maths behind, thats fine, if you just simply disagree so you are looking for ways to try and pick holes in the maths, again thats fine... but I'm not here to be your maths teacher, so I'm happy to walk away knowing that the probabilities presented around a scenario that requires multiple outcomes has been presented and won't change no matter how much you try and argue it.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No.... I was responding to your claim around WxWxW vs a combination that includes multiple wins in the sequence.

I have provided the maths behind it, included required winning % to achieve the parameter of 3 in 5...

And to be honest, all you have done is dance around it with long winded answers and misrepresentation of the position I was making.

If you either don't want to understand the logic/maths behind, thats fine, if you just simply disagree so you are looking for ways to try and pick holes in the maths, again thats fine... but I'm not here to be your maths teacher, so I'm happy to walk away knowing that the probabilities presented around a scenario that requires multiple outcomes has been presented and won't change no matter how much you try and argue it.

I must be too tired because I haven’t got a clue what you are on about.

But from where I sit, no amount of maths can dress 3 flags in 5 seasons up as being more or less likely than another 3 flags in 5 seasons(all else being equal) just because it is in a different sequence. I might have another look at your post when I have more time later, because you lost me, I straight out didn’t understand what you were trying to say.

Even in this post I have no idea what you mean by this passage:

HH - "so I'm happy to walk away knowing that the probabilities presented around a scenario that requires multiple outcomes has been presented and won't change no matter how much you try and argue it."

 

[Meteoric Rise]

explain 2008 when there’s arguments geelong achieved one of the best H&A seasons ever. If they had won that premiership making four out of five it would be both a better and a more rare achievement

they aren’t random occurrences like a roulette wheel. Massively flawed thinking

You’ve lost me too.

If there is ”massively flawed thinking” present in my post then perhaps quote the passage and say why you think it is wrong. Happy to discuss it from there.

 

[Noidnadroj]

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.

Wow …. There u go …. I knew it was 6 French and 5 Wimbledon and always thought they were both consecutive …. thanks for the correction.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Noidnadroj]

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.

Just because something hasn’t happened as often doesn’t mean it’s harder. Of course WxWWx or WxWxW or WWxWx etc… each happens less than xWWWx.

It’s like saying there have been 9 x tennis players win 4+ of the same major consecutively (I don’t know that exactly but Graf, Federer, Nadal, Evert, Djoker, Bjorg, Navratilova and probably a couple more).

But then say … only 3 players have won 4 of the same major non-consecutively, so given it hasn’t happened as often this proves it must be harder….or just as hard.

Of course it doesn’t prove anything of the sort. It just shows something happens less often than something else, and there are logical reasons for that, many of which do not at all relate with the difficulty of achieving the feat.

From next week we will give Ash Barty 5-years to win 3 x Aussie Opens or 3-years …. which is more difficult?

Or I’ll ask you to hit 3 x bullseyes with 3-darts or 5-darts. Just because HHH may happen more often than other combinations such as xHxHH or HxHxH doesn’t change the fact HHH was the much harder task.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Just because something hasn’t happened as often doesn’t mean it’s harder. Of course WxWWx or WxWxW or WWxWx etc… each happens less than xWWWx.

It’s like saying there have been 9 x tennis players win 4+ of the same major consecutively (I don’t know that exactly but Graf, Federer, Nadal, Evert, Djoker, Bjorg, Navratilova and probably a couple more).

But then say … only 3 players have won 4 of the same major non-consecutively, so given it hasn’t happened as often this proves it must be harder….or just as hard.

Of course it doesn’t prove anything of the sort. It just shows something happens less often than something else, and there are logical reasons for that, many of which do not at all relate with the difficulty of achieving the feat.

From next week we will give Ash Barty 5-years to win 3 x Aussie Opens or 3-years …. which is more difficult?

Or I’ll ask you to hit 3 x bullseyes with 3-darts or 5-darts. Just because HHH may happen more often than other combinations such as xHxHH or HxHxH doesn’t change the fact HHH was the much harder task.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You are comparing 3 flags in a specific 3 year span with 3 flags in 5 years and saying the 3 in a specific 3 years is harder to achieve. I agree, it is. But it is not the correct comparison for this thread.

I am comparing 3 consecutive flags only in a 5 year span with another non-consecutive combination of 3 flags in a 5 year span and saying it is no more difficult to achieve. That is the best way to compare the achievements of the teams on this thread.

Noidnadroj - "Just because something hasn’t happened as often doesn’t mean it’s harder. Of course WxWWx or WxWxW or WWxWx etc… each happens less than xWWWx.”

Are you saying here that if we are testing the following proposition:

3 consecutive Premierships within a 5 year period(what Hawks and Lions achieved) is more difficult to achieve than any other single sequence of 3 Premierships within a 5 year period(what Richmond and Geelong achieved)

that we should not refer to the frequency of these events occurring over the 125 year history of the competition as one of the elements to be considered?

I mean do you think that because the 3 possible 3 consecutive flag sequences within a 5 year period are over-represented in the sample of all 11 possible 3 flags in 5 year sequences, that this points to it being MORE difficult than any other sequence?

Of course it does not so at the very least if you want to claim it is more difficult, or a greater achievement, then you need to show other reasons why it is. And if you can’t, then you need to find other reasons to separate the dynasties. Consider here that I have shown other reasons why I think the Hawks from Lions from Cats from Tigers is the correct order for the 4 dynasties.

Remember also, I am not arguing it is a lesser achievement because it has occurred more often, I am arguing it is an equal achievement, and that any 3 flag sequence = any other 3 flag sequence, and other reasons need to be found to separate what the clubs achieved.

 

[Pessimistic]

Just because something hasn’t happened as often doesn’t mean it’s harder. Of course WxWWx or WxWxW or WWxWx etc… each happens less than xWWWx.

It’s like saying there have been 9 x tennis players win 4+ of the same major consecutively (I don’t know that exactly but Graf, Federer, Nadal, Evert, Djoker, Bjorg, Navratilova and probably a couple more).

But then say … only 3 players have won 4 of the same major non-consecutively, so given it hasn’t happened as often this proves it must be harder….or just as hard.

Of course it doesn’t prove anything of the sort. It just shows something happens less often than something else, and there are logical reasons for that, many of which do not at all relate with the difficulty of achieving the feat.

From next week we will give Ash Barty 5-years to win 3 x Aussie Opens or 3-years …. which is more difficult?

Or I’ll ask you to hit 3 x bullseyes with 3-darts or 5-darts. Just because HHH may happen more often than other combinations such as xHxHH or HxHxH doesn’t change the fact HHH was the much harder task.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

doesn’t tennis applaud a player who wins all four majors in a single year?

 

[Noidnadroj]

You are comparing 3 flags in a specific 3 year span with 3 flags in 5 years and saying the 3 in a specific 3 years is harder to achieve. I agree, it is. But it is not the correct comparison for this thread.

I am comparing 3 consecutive flags only in a 5 year span with another non-consecutive combination of 3 flags in a 5 year span and saying it is no more difficult to achieve. That is the best way to compare the achievements of the teams on this thread.

Noidnadroj - "Just because something hasn’t happened as often doesn’t mean it’s harder. Of course WxWWx or WxWxW or WWxWx etc… each happens less than xWWWx.”

Are you saying here that if we are testing the following proposition:

3 consecutive Premierships within a 5 year period(what Hawks and Lions achieved) is more difficult to achieve than any other single sequence of 3 Premierships within a 5 year period(what Richmond and Geelong achieved)

that we should not refer to the frequency of these events occurring over the 125 year history of the competition as one of the elements to be considered?

I mean do you think that because the 3 possible 3 consecutive flag sequences within a 5 year period are over-represented in the sample of all 11 possible 3 flags in 5 year sequences, that this points to it being MORE difficult than any other sequence?

Of course it does not so at the very least if you want to claim it is more difficult, or a greater achievement, then you need to show other reasons why it is. And if you can’t, then you need to find other reasons to separate the dynasties. Consider here that I have shown other reasons why I think the Hawks from Lions from Cats from Tigers is the correct order for the 4 dynasties.

Remember also, I am not arguing it is a lesser achievement because it has occurred more often, I am arguing it is an equal achievement, and that any 3 flag sequence = any other 3 flag sequence, and other reasons need to be found to separate what the clubs achieved.

So by extension, what about 4-flags?

Is Hawthorn’s 86-88-89-91, xWxWWxWx and Richmond’s 67-69-73-74 : WxWxxxWW or Hawks 08-13-14-15 : WxxxxWWW equitable to the Pies xxWWWWxx?

Each combo has only happened once in 125-years. So should they be rated equally difficult or equal achievements also?

I just think your analysis has holes in it by choosing an arbitrary 5-year period and putting a loss before and after a threepeat to make it a 5-year sequence. Just as I’ve put 2 x losses before and after the Pies 4-peat to make that an 8-year sequence.

Anyway … if all else is exactly equal I think a dynasty going WWW trumps one going WxWxW …. we will agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So by extension, what about 4-flags?

Is Hawthorn’s 86-88-89-91, xWxWWxWx and Richmond’s 67-69-73-74 : WxWxxxWW or Hawks 08-13-14-15 : WxxxxWWW equitable to the Pies xxWWWWxx?

Each combo has only happened once in 125-years. So should they be rated equally difficult or equal achievements also?

I just think your analysis has holes in it by choosing an arbitrary 5-year period and putting a loss before and after a threepeat to make it a 5-year sequence. Just as I’ve put 2 x losses before and after the Pies 4-peat to make that an 8-year sequence.

Anyway … if all else is exactly equal I think a dynasty going WWW trumps one going WxWxW …. we will agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The question of the 4 flags over 8 seasons is more vexed imo. The 4 consecutive Collingwood flags were essentially won with the same team as far as I know. The Richmond 4 in 8 seasons and the two Hawthorn 4 in 8 seasons both had flags that were essentially won with related but distinctly different teams. So that is a very different situation to what we are discussing on this thread which is which is the best of these 4 modern dynasties.

These nuances alter the way you would answer according to what the precise question is.

So winning 4 non-consecutively in an 8 season span I would say is more attainable than 4 consecutively due to the fact you have to win the 4 consecutively with largely the same team. The 4 within 8 with non consecutive flags is possible with the aid of renewing the team. In the 67-74 Richmond, and 86-91 Hawks cases this could be done by using money to recruit the best ready made players in the country. There were 7 players who played in both 86 and 91. Richmond 6 players played in both 67 and 74 flag teams. Hawthorn 2008-2105 had I think only about 7 players in common. So they are related but very new teams.

Four flags with what is substantially the same team has only happened twice as far as I know. The Collingwood team you mentioned and the Melbourne team of the 50’s. One won 4 consecutively. The other won 5 in 6 seasons.

It is no more arbitrary for me to favour a 5 year comparison so as not to exclude any major achievements of any dynasty team than it is for people to select 3 years as the span over which to judge the teams, which is exactly what is being done when you say the 3 consecutive flags trumps 3 over 4 or 5 years.

By the way I don’t need to put a miss before the threepeat to reduce it to 3 in 5 years. You can start or end the sequence anywhere you want and it is still 3 Premierships in a 5 year span.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

So winning 4 non-consecutively in an 8 season span I would say is more attainable . There were 7 players who played in both 86 and 91. Richmond 6 players played in both 67and 74 flag teams. Hawthorn 2008-2105 had I think only about 7 players in common. So they are related but very new teams.

Four flags with what is substantially the same team has only happened twice as far as I know. The Collingwood team you mentioned and the Melbourne team of the 50’s. One won 4 consecutively. The other won 5 in 6 seasons.

It is no more arbitrary for me to favour a 5 year comparison so as not to exclude any major achievements of any dynasty team than it is for people to select 3 years as the span over which to judge the teams, which is exactly what is being done when you say the 3 consecutive flags trumps 3 over 4 or 5 years.

By the way I don’t need to put a miss before the threepeat to reduce it to 3 in 5 years. You can start or end the sequence anywhere you want and it is still 3 Premierships in a 5 year span.

Yes - but most of those 6 were super important - you had alot of ring ins - in 74 - but some were definitely carried by your champion players

Those 6 im trying to guess them - Bartlett Hart and Bourke - they are generational players - they would be in your 10 players in your clubs history - without question

Dick Clay - that makes 4 - if you are going to count Michael Greene - he was 20th man in 67 - but did not come on the field

But i cant think of the 6th one - and ive watched that GF 100 times - like Barrott had gone - i thought Dean had retired by then - your 2 ruckman had gone - your whole backline had gone

So who was the 6th one

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yes - but most of those 6 were super important - you had alot of ring ins - in 74 - but some were definitely carried by your champion players

Those 6 im trying to guess them - Bartlett Hart and Bourke - they are generational players - they would be in your 10 players in your clubs history - without question

Dick Clay - that makes 4 - if you are going to count Michael Greene - he was 20th man in 67 - but did not come on the field

But i cant think of the 6th one - and ive watched that GF 100 times - like Barrott had gone - i thought Dean had retired by then - your 2 ruckman had gone - your whole backline had gone

So who was the 6th one

Bartholomew Richardson

It is true it is normally the better players who survive over this type of time span. This gives the teams a relationship to each other, but I think if you looked at say Richmond 67 v 74 or Hawks 86-91 you would struggle to say they are substantially the same teams.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

Bartholomew Richardson

It is true it is normally the better players who survive over this type of time span. This gives the teams a relationship to each other, but I think if you looked at say Richmond 67 v 74 or Hawks 86-91 you would struggle to say they are substantially the same teams.

Aaah - Barry hey - i didnt mind mind him - he spent 3-4 years at the Cats as Chairman of Selectors

He was a very versatile player - with 2 standout performances - which emphasise that fact

That 74 GF i can remember that now - the last qtr he was playing full forward ( against David Dench who was a champion FB ) and Richardson kicked 4 goals in that one qtr i think - Dench couldnt believe it - BR - just kept beating him one on one

And the other example - one game a few years earlier on - he was playing FB for Richmond in a game opposed to the great Peter Hudson and he is the only Full Back ( there may have been 1 other but that would be it ) who kept Hudson goalless - because it got huge publicity at the time - thats why i remember it

So playing FF in a GF and kicking 4-5 goals - and playing FB and keeping Hudson goalless - i would call that very versatile and in big games .

 

[Back One Out]

In a 5 year period you have 3 possible combinations of 3 consecutive flags: xWWWx WWWxx xxWWW
Plus the following 8 combinations to win 3 non-consecutive flags: xWxWW xWWxx xWWxW WxWWx WxWxW WxxWW WWxWx WWxxW

Which one of the highlighted examples above are you assigning to Richmond's 5 year dynasty?

1) xWxWW - where the first "x" = 2016... Tigers finished 13th, 8 wins, 79%, missed finals;

OR...

2) WxWWx - where the last "x" = 2021... Tigers finished 12th, 9 wins, 98%, missed finals


Bearing in mind, the "worst" season of other teams' 5 year dynasties were as follows:

Brisbane 2000.... finished 6th, 12 wins, 117%, WON EF v W.B (34pts), LOST SF v Carl (82pts)
Geelong 2010..... finished 2nd, 17 wins, 148%, LOST QF v St K (4pts) WON SF v Freo (69pts), LOST PF v Coll (41pts)
Hawthorn 2011... finished 3rd, 18 wins, 144%, LOST QF v Geel (31pts) WON SF v Syd (36pts) LOST PF v Coll (3pts)

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Which one of the highlighted examples above are you assigning to Richmond's 5 year dynasty?

1) xWxWW - where the first "x" = 2016... Tigers finished 13th, 8 wins, 79%, missed finals;

OR...

2) WxWWx - where the last "x" = 2021... Tigers finished 12th, 9 wins, 98%, missed finals


Bearing in mind, the "worst" season of other teams' 5 year dynasties were as follows:

Brisbane 2000.... finished 6th, 12 wins, 117%, WON EF v W.B (34pts), LOST SF v Carl (82pts)
Geelong 2010..... finished 2nd, 17 wins, 148%, LOST QF v St K (4pts) WON SF v Freo (69pts), LOST PF v Coll (41pts)
Hawthorn 2011... finished 3rd, 18 wins, 144%, LOST QF v Geel (31pts) WON SF v Syd (36pts) LOST PF v Coll (3pts)

You could probably use either season for the Tigers, both poor seasons where a lot went wrong. But the list in 2021 probably had a more realistic chance to contend, so I would likely lean that way and say their dynasty so far consists of WxWWx. I think the club will improve this year but I don’t expect they can beat the best few teams in the finals, so I think the dynasty is effectively over and this places Richmond 4th of the great dynasties in terms of what they achieved overall. I am prepared to alter that view on another strong finals series though.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Aaah - Barry hey - i didnt mind mind him - he spent 3-4 years at the Cats as Chairman of Selectors

He was a very versatile player - with 2 standout performances - which emphasise that fact

That 74 GF i can remember that now - the last qtr he was playing full forward ( against David Dench who was a champion FB ) and Richardson kicked 4 goals in that one qtr i think - Dench couldnt believe it - BR - just kept beating him one on one

And the other example - one game a few years earlier on - he was playing FB for Richmond in a game opposed to the great Peter Hudson and he is the only Full Back ( there may have been 1 other but that would be it ) who kept Hudson goalless - because it got huge publicity at the time - thats why i remember it

So playing FF in a GF and kicking 4-5 goals - and playing FB and keeping Hudson goalless - i would call that very versatile and in big games .

You have a great memory GOB.

Richardson, is held in fine esteem at Richmond for excellent finals performances. His knee problems curtailed his career a fair bit, restricting him to just 125 games, but very nice career, which of course progressed to being coach and then president at Tigerland. He played the majority of his career in the number 17 guernsey that was made famous by none other than Captain Blood Jack Dyer. So this points to the Tigers rating him very highly.

 

[White Dogg]

Whoops.

Tigers with only 6% of the votes.

OP needs to call for reinforcements...

As a neutral with no skin in this game, I did a quick assessment of the Richmond votes, and out of 28 votes for Richmond, 26 votes are from Richmond supporters! That means a measly 7.15% of the votes for Richmond came from neutrals.

Richmond 2017-20 were similar to Adelaide 1997-98 in all honesty. Both sides struck gold while the iron was hot and got the absolute most out of their windows, and it wouldn't have been possible if not for amazing grand finals from superstars such as Martin, McLeod and Jarman!

Shane Ellen kicking 5 goals in a grand final and Jack Graham kicking 3 goals in a grand final were also amazing efforts, and shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the achievements of Richmond 2017-20 and Adelaide 1997-98 either.

 

[White Dogg]

Whoops.

Tigers with only 6% of the votes.

OP needs to call for reinforcements...

In addition, I worked out the following.

Out of 123 votes for Brisbane, only 23 votes for Brisbane are from Brisbane supporters, meaning a whopping 81.30% of votes for Brisbane are from neutrals!!

Out of 58 votes for Geelong, only 17 votes for Geelong are from Geelong supporters, meaning 70.69% of votes for Geelong are from neutrals.

Meanwhile, out of 95 votes for Hawthorn, 70 votes are from Hawthorn supporters, meaning only 26.32% of votes for Hawthorn are from neutrals.

That means the poll results so far are as follows, if you only count neutral votes..

Brisbane - 100 votes
Geelong - 41 votes
Hawthorn - 25 votes
Richmond - 2 votes

To be honest, I'm quite surprised at finding out the majority of votes for Geelong are from neutrals, while the majority of votes for Hawthorn are from Hawks supporters, because I always assumed neutrals rated Hawthorn higher than Geelong due to the three peat factor, along with remembering the 2008 grand final.

Brisbane are by far the highest rated by neutrals, which is no surprise at all due to Brisbane being an interstate side, hence neutrals rating them the highest due to the travel factor and playing grand finals at the MCG against Melbourne based teams. In fact, Brisbane have more votes from neutrals than all of Geelong, Hawthorn and Richmond combined!!

Richmond supporters seem to have had a reality check in 2021, and it's made them realise their era is the 4th greatest era this century, which is bookended by 13th and 12th place finishes, which is similar to Adelaide 1997-98, who's era is also bookended by 12th and 13th place finishes.

This thread mainly consists of Hawthorn supporters flying the flag for the Hawks, and neutrals flying the flag for the Lions and Cats. I mean, Fadge you have been flying the flag for Geelong more than anyone else in this thread, and you're a Pies supporter!!

Brisbane may be loved by neutrals, however Geelong are far from loved, in fact they're the 2nd most hated club behind Essendon who are the most hated, according to the "which club do you hate the most?" thread on this board. In fact, Geelong have twice the amount of votes as Hawthorn for the most hated club, so neutrals flying the flag for Geelong rather than Hawthorn can't be put down to Geelong being a club loved by neutrals, because Geelong are far from loved. Everyone hates Geelong and are sick of them hanging around the top 4 year in year, out, along with Chris Scott's constant whinging and disrespectful remarks towards other clubs.

 

[Fadge]

In addition, I worked out the following.

Out of 123 votes for Brisbane, only 23 votes for Brisbane are from Brisbane supporters, meaning a whopping 81.30% of votes for Brisbane are from neutrals!!

Out of 58 votes for Geelong, only 17 votes for Geelong are from Geelong supporters, meaning 70.69% of votes for Geelong are from neutrals.

Meanwhile, out of 95 votes for Hawthorn, 70 votes are from Hawthorn supporters, meaning only 26.32% of votes for Hawthorn are from neutrals.

That means the poll results so far are as follows, if you only count neutral votes..

Brisbane - 100 votes
Geelong - 41 votes
Hawthorn - 25 votes
Richmond - 2 votes

To be honest, I'm quite surprised at finding out the majority of votes for Geelong are from neutrals, while the majority of votes for Hawthorn are from Hawks supporters, because I always assumed neutrals rated Hawthorn higher than Geelong due to the three peat factor, along with remembering the 2008 grand final.

Brisbane are by far the highest rated by neutrals, which is no surprise at all due to Brisbane being an interstate side, hence neutrals rating them the highest due to the travel factor and playing grand finals at the MCG against Melbourne based teams. In fact, Brisbane have more votes from neutrals than all of Geelong, Hawthorn and Richmond combined!!

Richmond supporters seem to have had a reality check in 2021, and it's made them realise their era is the 4th greatest era this century, which is bookended by 13th and 12th place finishes, which is similar to Adelaide 1997-98, who's era is also bookended by 12th and 13th place finishes.

This thread mainly consists of Hawthorn supporters flying the flag for the Hawks, and neutrals flying the flag for the Lions and Cats. I mean, Fadge you have been flying the flag for Geelong more than anyone else in this thread, and you're a Pies supporter!!

Brisbane may be loved by neutrals, however Geelong are far from loved, in fact they're the 2nd most hated club behind Essendon who are the most hated, according to the "which club do you hate the most?" thread on this board. In fact, Geelong have twice the amount of votes as Hawthorn for the most hated club, so neutrals flying the flag for Geelong rather than Hawthorn can't be put down to Geelong being a club loved by neutrals, because Geelong are far from loved. Everyone hates Geelong and are sick of them hanging around the top 4 year in year, out, along with Chris Scott's constant whinging and disrespectful remarks towards other clubs.

This brings a lot of reality to the discussion.

Great analysis!

 

[Pessimistic]

In addition, I worked out the following.

Out of 123 votes for Brisbane, only 23 votes for Brisbane are from Brisbane supporters, meaning a whopping 81.30% of votes for Brisbane are from neutrals!!

Out of 58 votes for Geelong, only 17 votes for Geelong are from Geelong supporters, meaning 70.69% of votes for Geelong are from neutrals.

Meanwhile, out of 95 votes for Hawthorn, 70 votes are from Hawthorn supporters, meaning only 26.32% of votes for Hawthorn are from neutrals.

That means the poll results so far are as follows, if you only count neutral votes..

Brisbane - 100 votes
Geelong - 41 votes
Hawthorn - 25 votes
Richmond - 2 votes

To be honest, I'm quite surprised at finding out the majority of votes for Geelong are from neutrals, while the majority of votes for Hawthorn are from Hawks supporters, because I always assumed neutrals rated Hawthorn higher than Geelong due to the three peat factor, along with remembering the 2008 grand final.

Brisbane are by far the highest rated by neutrals, which is no surprise at all due to Brisbane being an interstate side, hence neutrals rating them the highest due to the travel factor and playing grand finals at the MCG against Melbourne based teams. In fact, Brisbane have more votes from neutrals than all of Geelong, Hawthorn and Richmond combined!!

Richmond supporters seem to have had a reality check in 2021, and it's made them realise their era is the 4th greatest era this century, which is bookended by 13th and 12th place finishes, which is similar to Adelaide 1997-98, who's era is also bookended by 12th and 13th place finishes.

This thread mainly consists of Hawthorn supporters flying the flag for the Hawks, and neutrals flying the flag for the Lions and Cats. I mean, Fadge you have been flying the flag for Geelong more than anyone else in this thread, and you're a Pies supporter!!

Brisbane may be loved by neutrals, however Geelong are far from loved, in fact they're the 2nd most hated club behind Essendon who are the most hated, according to the "which club do you hate the most?" thread on this board. In fact, Geelong have twice the amount of votes as Hawthorn for the most hated club, so neutrals flying the flag for Geelong rather than Hawthorn can't be put down to Geelong being a club loved by neutrals, because Geelong are far from loved. Everyone hates Geelong and are sick of them hanging around the top 4 year in year, out, along with Chris Scott's constant whinging and disrespectful remarks towards other clubs.

its fair analysis, but neutral is not every teams supporters other than the one in question. It should be every vote from supporters of the other 14 teams.I’d guess hawks geelong tigers fans make up the majority of the voters, as they have interest in the outcome.

id guess they wouldn’t vote for the Victorian rivals team, so they either vote for their team, or vote for brisbane

not surprised brisbane win cos they have the most names as players. The names/talent as apposed to systems based success progresses from lions the former gradually through to tigers the latter

 

[Pessimistic]

You’ve lost me too.

If there is ”massively flawed thinking” present in my post then perhaps quote the passage and say why you think it is wrong. Happy to discuss it from there.

You attributed too strong a link between ‘rarest sequence’ and ‘hardest achievement’

for sure it’s a factor but it’s not that close a link

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You attributed too strong a link between ‘rarest sequence’ and ‘hardest achievement’

for sure it’s a factor but it’s not that close a link

Fair enough. But I doubt something you are now at least partially agreeing with is “massively flawed thinking."