Is it really harder to go b2b than win 2 premierships with a gap year?

[MinerBoy]

Is this because Geelong lost in 2008?

Yes. Yes it is. End thread.

 

[captain cotch 9]

Im shocked and surprised to see this thread was created by a cats fan.
Flabbergasted really

 

[OhhhhhCyril]

OP still haunted by 2008 it seems. Suck it up

 

[barracoutta]

we haven't even gone back to back and already its significance is being talked down!!

 

[Arc1]

Well if it isn't you thinking, then who is it ??


*scratches head*

If you have read any of his posts, it should be apparent to you there are a number of voices in the fellow’s head.

 

[QuietB]

we haven't even gone back to back and already its significance is being talked down!!

Take the rest of this year off and win it next year.

Makes you a better team

 

[Badesumofu]

You're ignoring the issue where the b2b team fails to win a flag in the 3rd season. The b2b side also has an opportunity to win in the 3rd year but doesn't. It's 2in2 compared to 2in3.

No one is ignoring anything, it's just that your thesis is utterly stupid. A B2B team don't necessarily miss out the following year (as we've seen twice in recent history). A team that goes Flag-miss-Flag does necessarily miss out in the gap year. 2 out of 2 is unambiguously and unarguably harder than 2 out of 3. You're just attempting to falsely attribute a third opportunity to sides that manage 2 in 2. By that reasoning, you should also count the year following the 2 with a gap year and thus change the question to whether it is harder to win 2 in 3 years than 2 in 4 years to which the answer is the same anyway.

The only way you make Geelong's 2 in 3 as good as some other team's 2 in 2 (and by extension Geelong's 3 in 5 as good as Hawthorn or Brisbane's 3 in 3) is by specifically defining the periods of time you asses in a way that is designed to produce a given answer. Effectively starting with your conclusion and then going back to find the evidence for it.

Congratulations, you are as reasonable as 'creation science'. (sic)

 

[tigs2010]

2 out of 3 is so unremarkable I couldn't tell you the last team to do it outside of the obvious Hawks in 13/15

 

[Benny78]

We had 4 in 8 including back to back during the moon landing era. We must be the greatest of all time.

If it was a 4in7 I might actually agree. Still a great achievement!

I think Melbourne have it wrapped up though with their 5in6. And we can disregard Collingwoods 1920's premierships as everyone of them essentially has an asterisk.

 

[Benny78]

You make some terrific points

Where does Hawthorn's 1986-1991 effort rate compared to the ultimate 3 in 5? It's a bit like the Cats effort, but we managed to squeeze in a BTB in the middle

Extremely highly. Much more than Hawthorns recent success which only lasted 3 years. Like Geelongs era, there was no urgent need for that team to capitalize before they inevitably became shit again. It was a team with Champions on every line.

But when you look at Hawthorns flags before that ie 76, 78, 83 and players like Michael Tuck with 7 premierships. It would seem this team probably had an era from around the late 70's to the early 90's. A truly unprecedented feat. Even if the side was not as potent and damaging as our triple premiership era side or Brisbane sides (which arguably it was with players like Matthews and Dunstall). It definitely lasted much longer and achieved more than any club has since the AFL era. But then you need to consider factors such as missing finals in the gap years, and the performance of the team in gap years in general.

I would put that era below Melbournes 1950's success but probably above Geelong/Hawthorn and Brisbanes current AFL success.

 

[Tiger2709]

Only at Geelong could they concieve something so ridiculous in an attempt to make a failure to back up, a success, next someone will tell us they have 16 flags

 

[Holy Rioli]

I personally think it's a lot harder to win two premierships over 3 years than 2 years.

My reasons are:

• More change in the competition
• Retaining club culture and premiership standard for longer
• Unable to be thwarted by hungry oppo coaches and players, for 70+ rounds compared to 45.
• No honey moon peroid
• No media pressure or assisted belief
• More exposed to changes in your list, players and culture.

Sounds like someone isn't happy that their Geelong team couldn't even go back to back once, let alone twice.

 

[dean33]

That's a fair few. I'd imagine around only 4 or so clubs have managed to win 2 with a gap year. Probably even less.

Just off the top of my head so sure there are more that I’ve missed.
Richmond 67,69
Carlton 68,70
Carlton 70, 72
North 75, 77
Hawthorn 76, 78
Carlton 79, 81
Hawthorn 86, 88
Hawthorn 89, 91
West Coast 92, 94

 

[HTT]

Many here aren't grasping the concept of this thread at all. They both have 3 cracks. One doesn't win the 3rd year, the other doesn't win the gap year.

It's 2 flags in 2 years compared to 2 flags in 3 years. Both succeed twice and fail once.

It's definitely way harder to win B2B. When you defend your title, you are the hunted, teams lift when they play you. When you win 2 in 3, that is not the case.

 

[James Colorado]

By the OP logic, the ultimate is winning two flags in exactly 20 years, like Collingwood did. Very difficult, considering that the change in almost every person involved in the club. How many teams have dome that?

Well, there's 88-08, but what would be really impressive is a 30 year gap, like say 61-91, or 78-08.

 

[dean33]

Well, there's 88-08, but what would be really impressive is a 30 year gap, like say 61-91, or 78-08.

30 years is impressive however what about the difficulty level of a 50 year gap? The 1967 and 2017 tiger teams might have seen a few changes in the years between however the seed of 2017 was definitely planted in 67.

 

[Holy Rioli]

I wonder what is harder:

• Making 2 free throws in a row in basketball
• Making 2 out of 3 free throws

hmmm...

 

[tigertigertiger]

Geelong and hawthorn won premierships in very weak seasons. The competition only got tight when Richmond were rising, because Richmond is everyones grand final. Richmond are the first team in a very long time to win a premiership when a season was actually competitive.

 

[HawkAbroad]

I personally think it's a lot harder to win two premierships over 3 years than 2 years.

My reasons are:

• More change in the competition
• Retaining club culture and premiership standard for longer
• Unable to be thwarted by hungry oppo coaches and players, for 70+ rounds compared to 45.
• No honey moon peroid
• No media pressure or assisted belief
• More exposed to changes in your list, players and culture.

This is astoundingly hilarious.

Your reasons are: I love Geelong

The truth is 2 out of 2 is always better than 2 out of 3.

Now, it actually might be more difficult to win 2 out of 3. If you're good enough to win with a break in between, the odds are you were good enough to win back 2 back. It would take a special group of chokers to stuff that one up.

 

[Rance2Mewtwo]

Geelong supporters on here have an inferiority complex to Hawthorn.

If Richmond joins them in the multi-premiership club, I hope we’re more like Hawthorn.

Ending up like Geelong would be better than nothing, but it’s not what you aspire to as a club.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

You make some terrific points

Where does Hawthorn's 1986-1991 effort rate compared to the ultimate 3 in 5? It's a bit like the Cats effort, but we managed to squeeze in a BTB in the middle

B2B isnt any good according to the OP, keep up!

 

[MightyHawks]

B2B isnt any good according to the OP, keep up!

So does the B2B in the middle of the "3 in 5" actually devalue the whole thing?

 

[smeltitdeltit]

So does the B2B in the middle of the "3 in 5" actually devalue the whole thing?

OP would say so.
Unless of course it was the Cats that managed it.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

B2B you have two years, 2/3 you have three years. Not a hard one...

 

[Masqualero]

Is it easier to score %100 on a test or %66.6, is really what this question is.