What's been your club's best 5 year period in history?

[Mr Meow]

I feel like I’ve rocked up to pick my esky up the next morning from a party and two blokes are still going hard

You didn't contribute initially, so the line doesn't make sense.

It would be closer to you peering into a pub from outside, until closing time. An odd thing to do, but no judgement here.

 

[Pistol Night]

You didn't contribute initially, so the line doesn't make sense.

It would be closer to you peering into a pub from outside, until closing time.

Not to a pissed campaigner the next morning

 

[Pistol Night]

You didn't contribute initially, so the line doesn't make sense.

It would be closer to you peering into a pub from outside, until closing time. An odd thing to do, but no judgement here.

I’ve contributed to the thread I just haven’t got the willpower to have the same shitfights over and over like you hardcore gurus

 

[Mr Meow]

Leading into the 2011 Grand Final, Collingwood's record was 35 wins, 2 draws and 3 losses from the previous 40 games.

Two of the three losses were in dead rubbers - one in the final home and away round of 2010 against Hawthorn after top spot was secured, and the other in the final home and away game of 2011 after top spot was secured.

But the Pies were only an 'average' losing Grand Final team in 2011 according to the great one's 'algorithm'.

FMD.

Meteoric Rise please explain to this fool why facing the 2013 Dockers, 2015 Eagles, 2017 Crows or 2019 Giants at your home ground was a tougher proposition than taking on those pathetic Pies at their home ground. You can do it much better than me.

 

[Mr Meow]

I’ve contributed to the thread I just haven’t got the willpower to have the same shitfights over and over like you hardcore gurus

Yet still you read it all and so are really just as engaged.

If you don't read it, but post the same comments anyway, it gets weirder. "I came here not to post, like these guys post!".

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Leading into the 2011 Grand Final, Collingwood's record was 35 wins, 2 draws and 3 losses from the previous 40 games.

Two of the three losses were in dead rubbers - one in the final home and away round of 2010 against Hawthorn after top spot was secured, and the other in the final home and away game of 2011 after top spot was secured.

But the Pies were only an 'average' losing Grand Final team in 2011 according to the great one's 'algorithm'.

FMD.

Leading into the 2011 GF, the Pies preceding 3 games were:

Rd 22 - 96 point loss to Cats.
FW1 - 20 point win v interstate away team who had won the wooden spoon with 4 wins the previous season
FW3 - lucky 3 pt win v a team who finished 7th the previous season & missed finals the year before that

Cats must have been shaking in their boots.

 

[Mr Meow]

Leading into the 2011 GF, the Pies preceding 3 games were:

Rd 22 - 96 point loss to Cats.
FW1 - 20 point win v interstate away team who had won the wooden spoon with 4 wins the previous season
FW3 - lucky 3 pt win v a team who finished 7th the previous season & missed finals the year before that

Cats must have been shaking in their boots.

So they lost a dead rubber, had a cruisy enough home advantage QF win ala 2013 Freo's prelim, then a close prelim against an upcoming dynasty MCG tenant side where neither side had HGA. Wow, that really threw their credentials out the window!

In 2011, Geelong beat two MCG tenants in finals at their home ground. The defending premier on a 40 game tear (35 wins in that period) and a side starting one of the best 5 year periods of the AFL era. They did get one relatively soft kill in between, the 2011 prelim against West Coast, which was akin to so many easy Hawthorn and Richmond finals from their dynasties (except the Cats had less of a home ground advantage).

 

[Fadge]

Leading into the 2011 GF, the Pies preceding 3 games were:

Rd 22 - 96 point loss to Cats.
FW1 - 20 point win v interstate away team who had won the wooden spoon with 4 wins the previous season
FW3 - lucky 3 pt win v a team who finished 7th the previous season & missed finals the year before that

Cats must have been shaking in their boots.

How do you determine which previous or following years' performances are relevant, and which ones aren't?

 

[Mr Meow]

How do you determine which previous or following years' performances are relevant, and which ones aren't?

Yeah that post, along with all of his others, was a giant contradiction based on that.

I personally do think a teams preceding and follow up year has some relevance (not least because of a group getting finals experience and displaying their credentials in that high stakes setting), so it's perfectly valid to question how strong the 2011 Eagles were. Not so much the 2009 Saints, 2011 Pies etc. But very much so with relatively flash in the pan GF sides like the 2017 Crows or 2019 Giants. It's what makes Sydney 2014 the Hawks biggest GF scalp from that era. They at least got the job done 2 years earlier and were yet to commence their GF choking run. The 2013 Dockers and 2015 Eagles were "nothing" teams. It took a few years of soul searching and team building for the latter to get their act together.

 

[Fadge]

Lol Mr Meow thinks it matters how well your Grand Final opponent played in another surrounding year is crucial to how good you were, BUT whether you yourself won the flag in those surrounding years is irrelevant to how good you were.

Because in an earlier post, you said this...

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

2012-2017

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So they lost a dead rubber, had a cruisy enough home advantage QF win ala 2013 Freo's prelim, then a close prelim against an upcoming dynasty MCG tenant side where neither side had HGA. Wow, that really threw their credentials out the window!

Mate you are trying to sell them as a super team. If they are a super team, they crush those 2 finals opponents leading into the GF.

Love to hear you explain why you think:

• how well your GF opponent performed in adjacent seasons is crucial to how good a team you are
• whether you yourself won the flag or not in adjacent seasons is irrelevant to how good you are

 

[Pistol Night]

How do you determine which previous or following years' performances are relevant, and which ones aren't?

Simple. Collingwood are always irrelevant and Richmond relevant

 

[Mr Meow]

Mate you are trying to sell them as a super team. If they are a super team, they crush those 2 finals opponents leading into the GF.

Love to hear you explain why you think:

• how well your GF opponent performed in adjacent seasons is crucial to how good a team you are
• whether you yourself won the flag or not in adjacent seasons is irrelevant to how good you are

How does that make any sense? The 2011-2015 era Hawks were an incredible team, hence their place in this thread. There was no home ground advantage for Collingwood. Why would a close prelim suddenly make them a weaker team?

If your logic was applied to Hawthorn, 2012-2015 prelims they just barely scraped over the line against some decent but not world beater teams, 3 of them where they had distinct home ground advantage. Prelims are often close run things. They don't invalidate the previous 24 data points.

You yourself just used teams previous or future records to establish your argument. Are you just admitting you're a massive hypocrite?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

How do you determine which previous or following years' performances are relevant, and which ones aren't?

I am not arguing any of them are relevant or irrelevant. Just showing the absurdity of yours & Meow's positions.

 

[Mr Meow]

I am not arguing any of them are relevant. Just showing the absurdity of yours & Meow's positions.

Show me a list of the great teams of the AFL era that had just 1 GF appearance in a 5 or 6 year period. Teams that prove their finals credentials within a few year stretch elevate their status as opponents, just the same way that dynasty teams do so by winning multiple flags.

Sides like the 2013 Dockers, 2015 Eagles, 2017 Crows and 2019 Giants really did nothing noteworthy in the few years preceding or following. A prelim loss here or there at best. A defending premier, or a side about break through into further grand finals, has more established credentials than a squad that never even gets to GF day before or after. On that basis the 2011 Pies and 2009 Saints were far more proven quality opposition than the 2017 Crows (for example), before even getting into the actual seasons in question (22-2 records heading into grand final day).

If the 2017 Crows were premiers the preceding year, had a 22-2 record heading into the 2017 GF and Richmond beat them in Adelaide to win the premiership of course it would be viewed as a bigger scalp. Don't even bother denying it.

 

[Fadge]

I am not arguing any of them are relevant. Just showing the absurdity of yours & Meow's positions.

So previous and future year's performance irrelevant.

Also Home and Away season form irrelevant. (Except if Collingwood loses a dead rubber in their final home and away game because they'd already secured top spot - then it is considered a negative for Collingwood).

Just look at the finals margins in a specific season to determine the relative strength of finals and Grand Final teams.

Sounds logical.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Show me a list of the great teams of the AFL era that had just 1 GF appearance in a 5 or 6 year period. Teams that prove their finals credentials within a few year stretch elevate their status as opponents, just the same way that dynasty teams do so by winning multiple flags.

Sides like the 2013 Dockers, 2015 Eagles, 2017 Crows and 2019 Giants really did nothing noteworthy in the few years preceding or following. A prelim loss here or there at best. A defending premier, or a side about break through into further grand finals, has more established credentials than a squad that never even gets to GF day before or after. On that basis the 2011 Pies and 2009 Saints were far more proven quality opposition than the 2017 Crows (for example), before even getting into the actual seasons in question (22-2 records heading into grand final day).

This is how absurd your position is. Forget the year or the team. If you make a GF you have got the better of every other team in the competition that year bar your GF opponent. If you didn't do well in previous or future seasons, you had to get the better of teams that did during the year you made the GF. Those teams don't just vanish in the year you make the GF.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So previous and future year's performance irrelevant.

Also Home and Away season form irrelevant. (Except if Collingwood loses a dead rubber in their final home and away game because they'd already secured top spot - then it is considered a negative for Collingwood).

Just look at the finals margins in a specific season to determine the relative strength of finals and Grand Final teams.

Sounds logical.

All things are possibly relevant to a greater or lesser extent.

The thing that is clearly most relevant is the instant finals form of the team you have to face on GF day.

 

[Fadge]

All things are possibly relevant to a greater or lesser extent.

The thing that is clearly most relevant is the instant finals form of the team you have to face on GF day.

And 'form' is a different metric to 'margin'...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

And 'form' is a different metric to 'margin'...

Only one of those is a metric.

 

[Mr Meow]

This is how absurd your position is. Forget the year or the team. If you make a GF you have got the better of every other team in the competition that year bar your GF opponent. If you didn't do well in previous or future seasons, you had to get the better of teams that did during the year you made the GF. Those teams don't just vanish in the year you make the GF.

The funny thing is I have actually seen you argue, repeatedly, that Richmond's 2017-2020 run elevates the status of any individual team/season within it. Also, that we use these 5 year runs to measure the strength of dynasty teams but would somehow not apply the same logic to the very contenders they defeated on the way to those flags. In other words, yet again you're simply being a walking contradiction.

Proving your finals credentials in the couple of years preceding or following absolutely adds to a sides status, in the same way that winning premierships has done for the teams we're talking about. Flash in the pan sides, who were poor on GF day and didn't make it again (or feature previously) are rightly the most forgettable runner ups we've seen.

 

[Mr Meow]

So previous and future year's performance irrelevant.

Also Home and Away season form irrelevant. (Except if Collingwood loses a dead rubber in their final home and away game because they'd already secured top spot - then it is considered a negative for Collingwood).

Just look at the finals margins in a specific season to determine the relative strength of finals and Grand Final teams.

Sounds logical.

The very definition of deciding on your conclusion first and then just slapping whatever on whatever flimsy pretence you can to make it work.

I wonder who's going to tell MR that his whole Tier 1 vs Tier 2 Grand Final team thesis is an even more exaggerated version of using historical data to determine the strength of teams - which he is now dead against. But with that approach it doesn't look at one consistent squad over a few years, it uses a club's entire history. So 1950s results affect the strength of a 2014 team.

Looks like he really does flip every single one of his arguments on a dime depending on which way he wants the narrative to flow. I've noticed these faux pas are becoming more frequent with poor old Rusey.

 

[Mr Meow]

All things are possibly relevant to a greater or lesser extent.

The thing that is clearly most relevant is the instant finals form of the team you have to face on GF day.

Is it? Have you checked 2007 Port Adelaide's finals form heading into GF day? They just won a prelim by 87 points, which was the very most recent data point.

From this angle, I can understand how you have them well ahead of 2011 Collingwood just like the rest of the football world.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

The funny thing is I have actually seen you argue, repeatedly, that Richmond's 2017-2020 run elevates the status of any individual team/season within it. Also, that we use these 5 year runs to measure the strength of dynasty teams but would somehow not apply the same logic to the very contenders they defeated on the way to those flags. In other words, yet again you're simply being a walking contradiction.

Proving your finals credentials in the couple of years preceding or following absolutely adds to a sides status, in the same way that winning premierships has done for the teams we're talking about. Flash in the pan sides, who were poor on GF day and didn't make it again (or feature previously) are rightly the most forgettable runner ups we've seen.

Winning multiple Premierships within a time frame clearly elevates a team above failing to do so, that is not even debatable, unless you are Fadge and claim 2010 Bulldogs were 10 goals better than the Richmond dynasty team.

But going by your logic for the relative strength of contenders, if say 2009 PF Bulldogs kicked a fraction straighter and Saints played to the exact same level, and Bulldogs win, they both become flash in the pan GF teams. Whereas because the Dogs Kicked 7.11 to Saints 9.6, Saints are a very high quality GF opponent.

Makes no sense.