How long until we see a top-heavy period like the late 2000's/early 2010's again?

Remove this Banner Ad

Always Ballin

Social Activist. Freedom Fighter. Feminist.
Jan 11, 2015
4,711
7,371
Main Forum Poster
AFL Club
West Coast
During that period we saw some incredibly special teams:
  • Geelong from 2007-2011
  • Collingwood from 2009-2012
  • Saint Kilda from 2009-2011
If you want to extend the period out a little, you can include teams like Hawthorn and Sydney.

It felt like, around about 2009-2010 or so, there were three all-time great squads up and running. Saint Kilda and Geelong had both been building up since the early 2000's. Collingwood since about the mid 2000's. Great lists that were able to realize and reach their full potential, thanks to great coaches at the helm.

During those periods, they went:
  • Geelong 2007-2011 = 105-20
  • Collingwood from mid 2009-mid 2012 = 66-13-2
  • Saint Kilda from mid 2008-2010 = 48-14-2
I feel like if Saint Kilda had come 3-4 years earlier with this team, they'd have won it all, multiple times. Hell, they were that close to winning twice while going up against all-time great competition.

There are periods where there's an abundance of significantly talented teams, and other periods where there might only be one, if at all any. I think, over the last 5 years, we've been in a lesser period. Ever since Hawthorn and Sydney dropped off, in my opinion. Richmond has been dominant, but I don't feel like they've gone up against the quality of opposition that the 3 teams listed above had to. I even think Sydney was more of a foil to Hawthorn than any of the teams over the last 5 years have been to Richmond.

But that's just my opinion.

Each of these 3 tremendous late 2000's/early 2000's sides had a different origin story.

Geelong broke out in 2004, making the top 4, going all-the-way to a prelim final. They had a tremendous list that disappointingly underperformed in 2005 and 2006. It seemed like more of the same 3-4 games into 2007 before everything changed. I don't think too many people were surprised by how good they became, because the potential was always there.

The story was fairly similar for Saint Kilda. They burst onto the scene in 2004 as well, winning something like their first 10 or 11 games. They finished in the top 4, and lost a close prelim final in Adelaide. They had, by far, the best list in the AFL — and it was fairly young to boot. They had Nick Reiwoldt, who had just broken the marks record. They had Gehrig, who kicked 100+ and won the Coleman. They also had arguably the best small FWD in the game in Milne — someone who'd go on to kick huge 60-70 as a small.

They also had Koschitzke too. Talk about a stacked FWD line.

Their midfield was tremendous, with lots of young, blossoming talent. Luke Ball, Lenny Hayes, Brendan Goddard, Nick Dal Santo, Leigh Montagna, etc, etc...

Like Geelong, they failed to take the next step after 2004. Despite having the best list in football, they couldn't reach their full potential. Grant Thomas out, Ross Lyon in, a few roster changes, gameplan, that list maturing — things were back on track by 2008. 2009 is when they finally arrived.

Collingwood's journey was a little different. They bottomed out in 2004 and 2005 after back-to-back grand final appearances. You could say they overachieved. They made the right list changes and were back on the right track by 2006. I'm not sure what happened between 2006 and 2009, but perhaps they completely flushed out remnants from the 2002-2003 era team. They were very young when they started playing top-notch football halfway through the 2009 season.
 
Last edited:
In reference to the comment above about not being sure what happened at Pieland 2006-2009, I’d say Collingwood’s list in 2007 is the most stacked Collingwood side I’ve ever seen if you consider the careers that most of the players went on to have - the issue was it coincided with the peak of absolutely no one; the 2002/2003 remnants were on the way out (Buckley, Licuria, Rocca, Clement, Wakelin and Burns retiring within three years) while the kids that formed the core of the 2010-11 were inexperienced and just being exposed to AFL for the first time. Pushed Geelong to five points in a prelim when they won their other finals by 100+
 
Apr 28, 2008
11,211
8,194
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Arsenal Kilmarnock
That was the funny thing about 2016. It was one of the most exciting contestable Septembers for some time, but the level required to win a flag had slipped once again, and it hasn’t really returned to 2015 level ever since. The good thing about the late 00s/early 10s is that the flag standard demanded respect. There was a top echelon who weren’t just playing better form football, it felt like a class division. St Kilda in 2009 raised coaching to new heights. Therefore, winning a flag felt less attainable and more precious.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mar 19, 2014
5,054
13,322
Newcastle
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Coney Island Warriors, Dallas, Liverpool
Should've been West Coast, Geelong, or Collingwood. None of them have been able to back their play up for long.
I'd argue it was meant to be GWS.

edited- a word
 
Last edited:

Cotchins Hair Piece

Bouffant Flat Top
Mar 6, 2019
4,774
10,355
AFL Club
Melbourne
Just here waiting for Richmond supporters to make this about Richmond.
40FC9DEE-2D0E-4E30-993E-0756D116962D.jpeg
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,787
22,309
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
West Coast & Geelong were pretty good!
You’ve missed my sarcasm. I def agree with you. Geelong may have had three more flags if not for Richmond. West Coast see missed opportunities in both 2019 and 2020.

I find it a funny narrative that the OP is pushing. Like “nearly flags” back then are better than flags now.

We all agree Geelong were great. Collingwood we’re really good, but only came away with one flag. But they were so close to another in 2011 some argue. Ok, let’s say they win that… then the Cats have “only” won two flags and the Pies two.

Then we have to consider the Saints. So close… on two occasions. Let’s say they won both of them. Saints have two, Pies have one (the close one against Geelong) and the Cats then only have one.

Sydney (>150%), Geelong (>140%) and Hawthorn all went 17-5 in 2016. In 2017 Adelaide were flying, two games clear on top with two rounds to go. In 2018 Richmond were monstering the competition. In 2019 Geelong were 11-1 at the bye. Port and Brisbane were both on track for 18 win seasons last year if a full season had been played. None of these teams won. But they all
provided worthy opposition.

Only one cup is handed out each year, and you build your team and game plan to beat the opposition in the here and now to win that cup. You can win by a lot or a little, but they’re all worth the same.
 

Always Ballin

Social Activist. Freedom Fighter. Feminist.
Jan 11, 2015
4,711
7,371
Main Forum Poster
AFL Club
West Coast
You’ve missed my sarcasm. I def agree with you. Geelong may have had three more flags if not for Richmond. West Coast see missed opportunities in both 2019 and 2020.

I find it a funny narrative that the OP is pushing. Like “nearly flags” back then are better than flags now.

We all agree Geelong were great. Collingwood we’re really good, but only came away with one flag. But they were so close to another in 2011 some argue. Ok, let’s say they win that… then the Cats have “only” won two flags and the Pies two.

Then we have to consider the Saints. So close… on two occasions. Let’s say they won both of them. Saints have two, Pies have one (the close one against Geelong) and the Cats then only have one.

Sydney (>150%), Geelong (>140%) and Hawthorn all went 17-5 in 2016. In 2017 Adelaide were flying, two games clear on top with two rounds to go. In 2018 Richmond were monstering the competition. In 2019 Geelong were 11-1 at the bye. Port and Brisbane were both on track for 18 win seasons last year if a full season had been played. None of these teams won. But they all
provided worthy opposition.

Only one cup is handed out each year, and you build your team and game plan to beat the opposition in the here and now to win that cup. You can win by a lot or a little, but they’re all worth the same.
We're talking about 3 separate teams that all had near-perfect home and away seasons.
  • Geelong 2008 (21-1)
  • Saint Kilda 2009 (20-2)
  • Collingwood 2011 (20-2)
These are teams that had sustained success over multiple seasons. Their win-loss records over this period are exceptional, GOAT-tier... and yet, they each made multiple grand finals over this period. They each got the better of each other at one point or another during these few years.

There's really only two ways you can look at this:
  • They're all overrated teams, which is why they beat each other
  • They're all extremely great all-time teams, which is why they beat each other
You can't say one was great without saying the other two were as well. Because they all at one point lost to one another — within a short window of time. Teams don't fall off that fast.

I think the simple answer is that they were all really damn good. I think this period of time sticks out, like a "golden era" of talented teams at the top in the AFL. Like the boxing heavyweight division in the 60's and 70's. Or the "Four Kings" Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, and Duran era.

Let me put it to you like this... I don't think Floyd Mayweather would be looked at as perfect as he is/was, if he fought in that era with those 4 guys. Richmond wouldn't nearly look as good if they went up against that kind of competition.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,787
22,309
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
We're talking about 3 separate teams that all had near-perfect home and away seasons.
  • Geelong 2008 (21-1)
  • Saint Kilda 2009 (20-2)
  • Collingwood 2011 (20-2)
These are teams that had sustained success over multiple seasons. Their win-loss records over this period are exceptional, GOAT-tier... and yet, they each made multiple grand finals over this period. They each got the better of each other at one point or another during these few years.

There's really only two ways you can look at this:
  • They're all overrated teams, which is why they beat each other
  • They're all extremely great all-time teams, which is why they beat each other
You can't say one was great without saying the other two were as well. Because they all at one point lost to one another — within a short window of time. Teams don't fall off that fast.

I think the simple answer is that they were all really damn good. I think this period of time sticks out, like a "golden era" of talented teams at the top in the AFL. Like the boxing heavyweight division in the 60's and 70's. Or the "Four Kings" Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, and Duran era.

Let me put it to you like this... I don't think Floyd Mayweather would be looked at as perfect as he is/was, if he fought in that era with those 4 guys. Richmond wouldn't nearly look as good if they went up against that kind of competition.
I recognise the point you’re making and I don’t disagree with it, but ultimately premierships and longevity need to accounted for too.

OP mentions St Kilda mid-2008 to end 2010 going 48-14-2, period of only 2.5 years. Richmond mid-2017 to end 2019 would have a comparable record, but with two flags.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Always Ballin

Social Activist. Freedom Fighter. Feminist.
Jan 11, 2015
4,711
7,371
Main Forum Poster
AFL Club
West Coast
I recognise the point you’re making and I don’t disagree with it, but ultimately premierships and longevity need to accounted for too.

OP mentions St Kilda mid-2008 to end 2010 going 48-14-2, period of only 2.5 years. Richmond mid-2017 to end 2019 would have a comparable record, but with two flags.
That's sort of my point. I'm not saying Richmond wouldn't win a premiership back then, just that I doubt they'd win 3.
 
I recognise the point you’re making and I don’t disagree with it, but ultimately premierships and longevity need to accounted for too.

OP mentions St Kilda mid-2008 to end 2010 going 48-14-2, period of only 2.5 years. Richmond mid-2017 to end 2019 would have a comparable record, but with two flags.
Richmond go 50-14

Almost identical.
 

Always Ballin

Social Activist. Freedom Fighter. Feminist.
Jan 11, 2015
4,711
7,371
Main Forum Poster
AFL Club
West Coast
Richmond go 50-14

Almost identical.
And yet, they'd still be trailing Geelong and Collingwood, with Saint Kilda just behind them.

A 3 time premiership team in an average era — all I'm trying to say. Not a bad era, just average. They'd, in my opinion, be at best a one-time premiership team if they played against tough talent like that.

When you consider that, it makes you look twice at teams like Collingwood and Saint Kilda back then. How would they have faired if they weren't up against such stiff competition? If they were playing the teams Richmond were?
 
Feb 28, 2007
51,384
66,886
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
The biggest problem is the pre-finals bye, introduced from 2016 onwards. It has produced too many flakey finals series, with wild and inexplicable form changes from week to week. If it had just happened once you could argue it was just a one-off, but five times?

Yep. It disadvantages teams that finished inside the top 4 and win in the first week of finals as it means they have a week off, play a match and then have another week off. Playing 1 match in 3 weeks makes it hard to suddenly switch on.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,787
22,309
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
And yet, they'd still be trailing Geelong and Collingwood, with Saint Kilda just behind them.

A 3 time premiership team in an average era — all I'm trying to say. Not a bad era, just average. They'd, in my opinion, be at best a one-time premiership team if they played against tough talent like that.

When you consider that, it makes you look twice at teams like Collingwood and Saint Kilda back then. How would they have faired if they weren't up against such stiff competition? If they were playing the teams Richmond were?
Fair enough. No-one cares that Andy Murray’s career has run parallel to Roger, Rafa and Novak. It’s only about beating who is in front of you.
 
So what we’re really saying is the Pies/Cats/Saints premierships came in 4 team comps, while the Tigers had to win in an eighteen team comp ;)

In all honesty, the Tigers have navigated the dilution of talent from moving to an eighteen team comp far better than every other side, and now with their sheer size should have a great opportunity to make themselves a destination club going forward (they already kinda were) in the same vein Geelong and for most of the last decade Hawthorn managed.

That’s no by product of luck, but rather the sensational management of the club through the 2010s - if you make the call in 2010 you’d say Collingwood had every opportunity to be that side, and for various reasons, it just didn’t happen. Credit to Richmond
 

gotterdamerung

Team Captain
May 2, 2021
366
420
AFL Club
Fremantle
I’d extend the period from 2007-2015 when it truly felt like there was a contest for whose style of footy would be supreme, not just whose team. Each of Geelong, St Kilda, Collingwood and Hawthorn offered differing coaching methods, all ultimately based around countering one another in finals.

We started that period with Geelong’s high hand ball style, went through forward presses and full field zones, finishing with Hawthorn’s precision kicking through defences. We haven’t had anything near that level of innovation across the league since.
 
May 5, 2016
43,480
48,516
AFL Club
Geelong
Fair enough. No-one cares that Andy Murray’s career has run parallel to Roger, Rafa and Novak. It’s only about beating who is in front of you.

I would argue that a lot of tennis fans at least care about that. Most would acknowledge that he would be a 6-7 time slam winner in many other eras - 3 slams as it is, plus losing 8 slam finals to Federer and Djokovic. How many people can say they’ve made 11 slam finals and 10 of them have been against two guys with nearly 40 slams between them. Utterly ridiculous
 
Mar 24, 2017
5,019
5,859
Blackburn
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
So what we’re really saying is the Pies/Cats/Saints premierships came in 4 team comps, while the Tigers had to win in an eighteen team comp ;)

In all honesty, the Tigers have navigated the dilution of talent from moving to an eighteen team comp far better than every other side, and now with their sheer size should have a great opportunity to make themselves a destination club going forward (they already kinda were) in the same vein Geelong and for most of the last decade Hawthorn managed.

That’s no by product of luck, but rather the sensational management of the club through the 2010s - if you make the call in 2010 you’d say Collingwood had every opportunity to be that side, and for various reasons, it just didn’t happen. Credit to Richmond
Dilution of elite talent is the main difference now compared with a decade ago.
Geelong had Scarlett, Enright, Selwood, Ablett, Bartel, Hawkins, Stevie J, Chapman, plus elite players like Kelly, Taylor, Corey
Hawks Mitchell, Hodge, Franklin, Roughead, Rioli, Lewis, Burgoyne and Lake, plus other elites in Gunston, Bruest, Birchall.
No team today has close to that many champions/match winners/elites. The middle teams are a lot stronger. The comp is more even. That is why the coach is more important than ever.
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
9,787
22,309
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
I would argue that a lot of tennis fans at least care about that. Most would acknowledge that he would be a 6-7 time slam winner in many other eras - 3 slams as it is, plus losing 8 slam finals to Federer and Djokovic. How many people can say they’ve made 11 slam finals and 10 of them have been against two guys with nearly 40 slams between them. Utterly ridiculous
That’s sort of my point though. Murray’s just another guy who has won a slam or two. Rates with Hewitt and Wawrinka. Yes, great tennis players compared to you and I and even most other tennis players, but not GREAT iykwim. Sometimes it’s just about hearing who is in front of you. Unfortunately for Murray that was the big 3.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back