The word dynasty...

[Yidaki]

Lately, the word "dynasty" has been thrown around like a rag doll. Talks are circulating that Geelongs one is over or that their dynasty was really not a "true" one with respect to their non-consecutive wins. Within these talks are discussions about Collingwood's so called "dynasty".

What I would like to ask my fellow Pie supporters is the following:

• What is your definition of the word "dynasty"?
• Is Collingwood currently in a dynasty? If so, when did it start and what would be a successful one given our current playing squad?

 

[PieNSauce]

Lately, the word "dynasty" has been thrown around like a rag doll. Talks are circulating that Geelongs one is over or that their dynasty was really not a "true" one with respect to their non-consecutive wins. Within these talks are discussions about Collingwood's so called "dynasty".

What I would like to ask my fellow Pie supporters is the following:

• What is your definition of the word "dynasty"?
• Is Collingwood currently in a dynasty? If so, when did it start and what would be a successful one given our current playing squad?

Traditionally a dynasty refers to a prolonged period of rule or domination. Generally speaking (off the top of my head) I'd say a 50 or 100 years. There has never been and will never be a dynasty in AFL.

 

[Rusty22]

In 5 years look up the word Dynasty in the Dictionary and it will say Collingwood

 

[mattys123]

The definition of the word dynasty has more of an origin around a family line or a hereditary line than that of a sporting type over a small period of time.

And while some use the word dynasty in regards to sport, I think a team really has to sustain a consistent championship winning effort over a long period of time (probably a minimum of 8-10 years) to be a "dynasty".

Of the top of my head there has only been two dynasties in AFL/VFL history, one being the Collingwood side of the late 20's and early to mid 30's, and the other being Melbourne in the 50's and early 60's.

A sporting dynasty has to be a team that has almost completely been turned over in terms of personnel yet still maintained a consistent championship winning culture at that club.

Therefore the current Geelong team is not a dynasty, because it only began in 2007 and may have ended in 2011.

 

[Old Spice]

A dynasty is a prolonged period of domination. In football terms, five years of dominance and flags definitely counts. I'd say Geelong definitely had a dynasty, Brisbane as well. Winning 3 flags in a five year period is an unbelievable feat really.

If Collingwood snaffle 2 more in the next few years, I'd say that's a dynasty too. We make up definitions, so depends where people want to draw the boundaries.

 

[neilk]

In the old days of Rugby League in Sydney the St George Dragons won 11 premierships in succession(1956-1966). I think that just about fits the bill of a sporting dynast.

 

[mattys123]

In the old days of Rugby League in Sydney the St George Dragons won 11 premierships in succession(1956-1966). I think that just about fits the bill of a sporting dynast.

Yep, that's a dynasty, so was Bill Russell's Celtics in the 50's and 60's, winning 11 titles in 13 years.

I just don't consider Geelong or Brisbane's recent runs "dynasties", they were basically done with the same group of players.

 

[Knightmare]

mattys is right with Bill Russell's Boston Celtics. The 90s Bulls would have to be another dynasty. Would be difficult to argue either were not dynasties.

For the definition I'd go with a team that dominates for an extented period and does so without equal. Geelong and Brisbane are the recent AFL examples who have had success beyond all others. Brisbane from 2001-2004 were incredible and Geelong from 2007-2011 even more so. Collingwood have the chance to become a dynasty with this current group, but I'd like to see another two premierships with this group before I call it a dynasty and consider it among the elite company it takes to get into the dynasty discussion.

 

[rose jam]

This was Dynsaty

Apparently the chick on the top left use to get naked in movies a lot. So that's good.
I think that's Heather Locklear at the front, so that's also good.
Could be Fasolo in middle though, the cocky bastard.

 

[half_back_flank]

The definition of the word dynasty has more of an origin around a family line or a hereditary line than that of a sporting type over a small period of time.

And while some use the word dynasty in regards to sport, I think a team really has to sustain a consistent championship winning effort over a long period of time (probably a minimum of 8-10 years) to be a "dynasty".

Of the top of my head there has only been two dynasties in AFL/VFL history, one being the Collingwood side of the late 20's and early to mid 30's, and the other being Melbourne in the 50's and early 60's.

A sporting dynasty has to be a team that has almost completely been turned over in terms of personnel yet still maintained a consistent championship winning culture at that club.

Therefore the current Geelong team is not a dynasty, because it only began in 2007 and may have ended in 2011.

The 80's and early 90's Hawthorn teams deserve to be included in that case.

 

[lozza63]

For me Fergie & Manchester United fit the bill quite adequately i would say - 12 Premier League titles since 1992-1993.

Just about beats the other dynasties outlined - if not for successive titles - certainly for the prolonged success over a period of 20 years.