Remove this Banner Ad

Modern "dynasties"

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

D

disgruntled goat

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Posts
4,567
Reaction score
700
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
THIS subject has been rattling around in my ... oh, what's that word? Head ... in my head for some days, triggered I think by something I read a couple of weeks ago about the much-spruiked Hawthorn "dynasty" that was supposed to have broken upon the footy world like a tsunami last September.

For a decade, we've heard talk of dynasties. Essendon should have had one through 1999-2001, the Lions DID have one from 01-03, and then with one big exception, every premier since 03 has had attached the "start of a dynasty" tag by either fans, the media or both.

Thus starts, typically, with the first markets on the next year's premiership race, within days of the grand final being played.

The premier is traditionally installed favourite to go back to back. In the past decade, only one premier has NOT been automatically posted as favourite to defend its title.

Guess who? Yes, Sydney. From memory, the Swans were put up at 10-1 for the 2006 flag, behind at least West Coast, St Kilda, Geelong, and I suspect the Bulldogs and even Collingwood.

We were all but dismissed as a serious chance in 06 and we'd barely finished celebrating the 05 triumph.

Yet (and here's my point, I think) of all those GF-winning teams back to Port in 04, we've been as strong a "dynasty" as any.

We missed going back to back (against the odds and a year's worth of media opinion) in 06, which is far, far better than Port did in 05, the Weagles in 07 and, ha ha, Hawthorn this time, and we still hold an edge in basic results on Geelong.

Combine this with our great run to finals in the past 13 years, our overall winning and defensive records and having done it all without embarrassing or shaming ourselves with "bottoming out", and we're as entitled as any team in recent times to claim our own "dynasty". Obviously, I'm talking about the Roos era, and there's really no need for me to start this thread, but goddammit, I just get so sick of reading about each new gun team building toward its "dynasty" (St Kilda being the latest, obviously, although I concede Geelong has a genuine claim to a dynasty if it can bounce back and win this year's flag).

I guess I'd like to know if I'm alone in thinking about this, or if others feel as strongly.

Cheers.
 
Dynasty is a team finishing in the top 8 4+ years in a row in a competitive position I reckon.

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008

Well... 2003 we made a Semi (I think?) same in 04 (again, I think?), won it in 05, Grand Final 06, crashed out EF 07, and Semi in 08. That to me is the hall-marks of a dynasty.

Geelong are a year away from being considered a dynasty - though depends how well they do this September as well - Hawks are not, Saints certainly are not.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Dynasty of spoons, Carltank
 
I think the main point I wanted to make was that Sydney deserves credit for establishing, well, maybe not a dynasty with a string of premierships, but certainly an extended period of success.

A good record in home-and-away, good finals record over a number of years, a strong, positive club culture and a list constantly being regenerated without that dreaded "bottoming out", despite what outsiders (eg, Craig Hatchetjob last night) have predicted for the club.
 
Nicely written Mr PB. The important this is Sydney gets credit from the people that count and whose opinions are valued. We are universally admired by all football clubs for our culture, ethos, committed brand of footy and they are all desperate to emulate our consistent success.
The other people that give the swans credit is the fans and our past players. Based on events like the Hall of Fame and others, we know they are as committed to the club as it is to them. they are honoured and revered.
We should not worry to much about the sport journo's who opine on whatever subject they deem will sell a paper, attract readers and viewers. The majority of the "opinion" is manufactured and not backed up by any in depth research. This is evidenced by the continual underating of our list which our performance over the last few weeks shows is not as dire as anyone thought.
It's wasted emotion worrying about what Hutchison, Wilson, Sheahan etc say. Your emotion is much better spent writing useful and insightful posts and discussing with your peers. As you know that at some stage the aforementioned journalists, or their esteemed peers, will be trolling big footy looking for their next big story!
You are not alone!
(now I will go and try and take my own advice and stop writing to Fox, One, Nine and complaining).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

mr patrick bateman said:
I think the main point I wanted to make was that Sydney deserves credit for establishing, well, maybe not a dynasty with a string of premierships, but certainly an extended period of success.

A good record in home-and-away, good finals record over a number of years, a strong, positive club culture and a list constantly being regenerated without that dreaded "bottoming out", despite what outsiders (eg, Craig Hatchetjob last night) have predicted for the club.
Click to expand...

I've thought about this one quite a bit, just never really knew how to start lol. Why can't a dynasty be a consistent finals record? The media tells us it has to be a string of flags, a fab 4, a couple of first pick 19yr olds and you have to kick 20 goals every week.

Well, media, f*** you, because Sydney does have a dynasty of competitive football and we've been more consistent than any other team over this decade. You can have your Carlton's who need to be in the bottom 4 for years and years to finally climb up the ladder, your St Kilda's who are predicted to do something every year but fail when it really matters, your Hawthorn's who end up believing their own media hype and fall in a heap after so much promise.

I'll gladly support a team that shows the heart that Sydney does, a team that builds gradually without using the flawed system that rewards failure. When we're back at the pinnacle at least we'll know that we haven't sold our dignity to get there, our players will be better for the fight and our reputation as a team that prides itself on hard football will be passed on to our next group of kids.

We've already found perfect replacements within to continue the dynasty. White takes over from Hall, Grundy takes over from Leo, Jack is like a flashier Kirk, Hannebery looking like the new Williams and then there's Bird, Meredith, Vez etc thrown in and we haven't had to lose any respect in gaining these players.

At Sydney, we don't rebuild. We re-up!:thumbsu:
 
I agree that Sydney's consistency deserves recognition, but 'dynasty' is the wrong word for it - it implies a period of sustained excellence where you are clearly the best team. While we have been very good for a number of years, at no time, even during the grand final years, were we unchallenged as the best team in the competition. And we have scraped through to make the finals a couple of times, such as last year.

In terms of modern dynasties, the only one I can really think of was the Lions. They sustained that level for a long time and were one of the great teams. I think Geelong would have been a dynasty had they won the grand final last year, but what the Saints have done this year means they are no longer towering over the rest of the league, and (unless the Cats win this year), one premiership in 2 and a bit years of dominance probably doesn't quite cut it from a historical perspective.
 
Dynasty for acting like they're top shit when they have won peanuts.. St Kilda.

Can't believe people missed St Kilda.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom