Would a Richmond Premiership in 2022 make the team one of the best of all time?

[Meteoric Rise]

Not at all, but let’s not pretend Richmond dominated 2020 like you claimed then.

Well no, it doesn’t. I might argue that their best was slightly better (going 32-2 over a period of 18 months with both losses being by 3 points might demonstrate that), but ultimately Richmond timed their runs better and sustained their dominance for longer. So well done to them.

Well, I’ll give you some doubts over our dominance in the 2020 finals series, but remember these were 80% time matches, and in the ones that mattered we were thundering home, suggesting full 80 minute matches would have provided bigger margins.

Collingwood had a very good period there for a while, but the art of being a great team in this context has to be making your best form line up with multiple finals series. And they didn’t do that. And as you have graciously conceded, Richmond did.

Fadge should take a leaf out of your book SuperSub, you are a rare fair minded Collingwood supporter.

 

[Thrawn]

2000 Bombers would have barely broken a sweat vs Richmond and Hawks dynasty teams.

They would've been smashed.

Bulldogs beat them using tactics that are now far more refined, they'd never get through any strong defensive zone. Their only other competitor in that year that had a shot at beating them limped into the finals without the best player in the competition at the time. Let's assume they'd have the same training, nutritional and sports science aspects modern teams take for granted. There's a reason why you don't see big bags of goals often, no 100+ goalkickers - Lloyd wouldn't be nearly as effective today as he was back then as a good example. They'd have to adapt to today's tactics, when their entire careers have been spent on playing with a specific way, with specific gameplans. That lack of priming and adaption would be the biggest reasons why they'd lose to the Hawks and Tigers.

Not to mention that this same side failed to replicate their success, getting physically demolished by a Lions outfit. Another dynasty side. The Hawks and Tiggers were just as physical as them, which just vindicates my earlier point. One of the things I really regret in my time watching footy, was that there was no Carlton vs Essendon GF in 2000 where Carlton had all their stars including a fully fit Kouta. Melbourne were not the 2nd best side that year, and it showed in the GF. Anything could happen, I have no doubt they would've shat their pants. Sure, people can point to the PF but that was a complete write-off anyway given we were practically on one leg and relied on a firing Kouta. Round 20 was the best example, the two teams were both in form and neck and neck until they kicked away in the final quarter, while Carlton were 2 down on the bench (which included Kouta).

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Richmond weren’t the best side in 2018, they were merely the team that won the most home and away matches.

Same for Cats in 2008.

On both occasions the team that was best across the finals series won the Premiership. Just like almost every year. You will find the correlation between minor premiers and Premiers is nowhere near as strong. And given all teams know decades in advance the title goes to the winner of the Grand Final and not necessarily the minor premier, don’t you think you might be looking in the wrong place for evidence of who is the best team each season?

I don’t think the best team wins the grand final every year. Upsets happen. HGA, injury, suspension, form happen.

But premierships are ultimately what they play for so I can see where you’re coming from.

 

[Falcon3518]

Look I think we can end this thread now it’s a bit redundant. We don’t need another flag to be the greatest, we already are. Best teams in the history of the game are as follows:

1. 13-15 Hawks = 17-20 Tigers
3. 07-11 Cats
4. 01-03 Lions
5. 80s Hawks
6. 2000 Bombers

Who cares about the rest. 50s Dees and 4peat pies would get thumped by North, not even close of the above teams.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Fadge]

I can't believe there are so many people who simply don't have the mental capacity to assess the relative dominance of teams according to their era, and objectively assess where they rank in the history of the game.

It really is quite sad.

 

[gouki88]

I can't believe there are so many people who simply don't have the mental capacity to assess the relative dominance of teams according to their era, and objectively assess where they rank in the history of the game.

It really is quite sad.

You should see Falcon's takes about VFL-era players...

 

[Falcon3518]

I can't believe there are so many people who simply don't have the mental capacity to assess the relative dominance of teams according to their era, and objectively assess where they rank in the history of the game.

It really is quite sad.

No what’s sad is that you don’t take tactics and systems into account across eras and just look at the names. That’s primary school level analysis. Worst worse is that you think you’re being smart


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[nineteen eighty]

Hi guys - nice reading. Wondering if someone can help me as I'm a little confused. In this pic some of the Richmond players are holding out 3 fingers. 3 of all things. Not one as in "F you". Not 2 as in "Victory". Or "Up yours". But 3. Please help...what does it mean??

 

[SuperVolley11]

Look I think we can end this thread now it’s a bit redundant. We don’t need another flag to be the greatest, we already are. Best teams in the history of the game are as follows:

1. 13-15 Hawks = 17-20 Tigers
3. 07-11 Cats
4. 01-03 Lions
5. 80s Hawks
6. 2000 Bombers

Who cares about the rest. 50s Dees and 4peat pies would get thumped by North, not even close of the above teams.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

What is the basis of these rankings? Or is just a vibe thing? Games won? % across the suggested time frame? Is it bias from which team you support and don’t like in any way?

 

[Falcon3518]

What is the basis of these rankings? Or is just a vibe thing? Games won? % across the suggested time frame? Is it bias from which team you support and don’t like in any way?

Cats and Lions played in an era of 1v1 defence. System based sides starting from Clarksons hawks changed the game forever, he essentially broke the game. Cats and lions wouldn’t know what hit them if they played against the hawks or tigers especially if they’ve never seen their systems before. Once the ball gets locked in their D50 it’s over. They would not know how to get out so they’d just panic and bomb the ball only for it to get it picked off again. On top of that I think the tigers and hawks have the best top end talent of each of the 4 teams. (Top 5 players)

Lions would cop it the worst, their list was slow af as back in those days contested beasts won games due to the 1v1 nature of the sport but it came at a cost to speed. Against team systems if you don’t have speed you can’t apply pressure, if you can’t apply pressure you’re a goner. Nowadays speed and pressure always wins. We’ve proven that by winning 3 flags without having the best overall list in the comp. The saying that a champion team will always beat a team of champions is best epitomised by Richmond.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Fadge]

On top of that I think the tigers and hawks have the best top end talent of each of the 4 teams. (Top 5 players)

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I can't believe there are so many people who simply don't have the mental capacity to assess the relative dominance of teams according to their era, and objectively assess where they rank in the history of the game.

It really is quite sad.

And you do? F*ck Fadge, this is getting funnier and funnier.

 

[SuperVolley11]

Cats and Lions played in an era of 1v1 defence. System based sides starting from Clarksons hawks changed the game forever, he essentially broke the game. Cats and lions wouldn’t know what hit them if they played against the hawks or tigers especially if they’ve never seen their systems before. Once the ball gets locked in their D50 it’s over. They would not know how to get out so they’d just panic and bomb the ball only for it to get it picked off again. On top of that I think the tigers and hawks have the best top end talent of each of the 4 teams. (Top 5 players)

Lions would cop it the worst, their list was slow af as back in those days contested beasts won games due to the 1v1 nature of the sport but it came at a cost to speed. Against team systems if you don’t have speed you can’t apply pressure, if you can’t apply pressure you’re a goner. Nowadays speed and pressure always wins. We’ve proven that by winning 3 flags without having the best overall list in the comp. The saying that a champion team will always beat a team of champions is best epitomised by Richmond.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Wait hang on, so your doing it on a magic time traveling match. Two teams dropped at the mcg to play against each other. Then you say a team from the 80s would beat a team from 2000 that lost 1 game for a whole season. Wow.

 

[Back One Out]

In my opinion, the best team of all time was Geelong in 2008.... and they didn't even win the premiership.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

On top of that I think the tigers and hawks have the best top end talent of each of the 4 teams. (Top 5 players)


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Would love to know the 5 Richmond players better than Voss, Akermanis, Black, Brown and Lappin. Not to mention Leppitsch and Lynch.

Please don't say Cotchin.

 

[Engimal v3]

Yes, but unfortunately they're as useless as **** on a bull

 

[Falcon3518]

Don’t believe me ok let’s take a look, imo in no particular order it’s roughly these players, keep in mind it’s the ages they were actually in the team:

Tigers: Rance, Cotchin, Dusty, Lynch, Riewoldt

Hawks: Buddy, Mitchell, Hodge, Roughead, Rioli

Cats: Scarlett, Enright, Bartel, Ablett, Chapman

Lions: Voss, Black, Aker, Lynch and young 20s Brown

Fwd line: Both Tigers and Hawks absolutely destroy a non-existent fwd line of the cats and aker/lynch/young 20s Brown are no way near as good as Lynch/Riewoldt/dusty and Buddy/Roughead/Rioli.

Backline: lions are non-existent they get wrecked by Rance, hodge and co. Cats have a slight edge in defence but Rance imo is in the same tier as Scarlett and Enright. Hawks and Tigers get a team defence/system bonus.

Mid: pretty even here it probably goes Lions, Cats, Tigers, Hawks.

Hawks and Tigers have a star on every line, Cats and Lions don’t. That’s the difference, what you do guys reckon?

 

[Falcon3518]

Wait hang on, so your doing it on a magic time traveling match. Two teams dropped at the mcg to play against each other. Then you say a team from the 80s would beat a team from 2000 that lost 1 game for a whole season. Wow.

Lethal and Dunstal are in that team bro and it’s 5 flags to 1. As I’ve said numerous times evolution only provides an edge it doesn’t mean automatically better. They were also both in the 1v1 era. Not much difference compared to today.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Would love to know the 5 Richmond players better than Voss, Akermanis, Black, Brown and Lappin. Not to mention Leppitsch and Lynch.

Please don't say Cotchin.

Not an argument that means much to me, but Martin, Cotchin, Rance, Riewoldt not to mention Bolton, T Lynch, would give a good account of themselves against anyone, any time. As would the above Lions group you named, and the Hawks and Cats best from their respective dynasties. It is hilarious when these best of discussions come up people think our great players aren’t really that great, our good players relied on our great players, our lesser players relied on our system, and our coach is also not that good, and the only thing that was any good was the system. Which must have magically appeared out of the sky one day.

But fear not, you only have to go to our board and read for a while to see that even some of our own supporters think along these lines.

 

[Falcon3518]

Would love to know the 5 Richmond players better than Voss, Akermanis, Black, Brown and Lappin. Not to mention Leppitsch and Lynch.

Please don't say Cotchin.

Voss, Black and Lappin are better than Cotchin I’m not biased. Can’t compare the other blokes as they play different positions. Fortunately for us our mid has Dusty in it and he’s better than all their mids.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[SuperVolley11]

I’m not biased.

If you have to say it. It’s like saying

I’m not racist…

Anyway your mental gymnastics on this whole comparison thing is amazing. Either you agree that teams as we go through the years because of tactics, fitness and overall skill level will always improve or you adjust it on personal and assume a level playing field on those factors. You can’t say north today would beat this amazing sides from yesterday then say 20 years means nothing because of two players.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

No what’s sad is that you don’t take tactics and systems into account across eras and just look at the names. That’s primary school level analysis. Worst worse is that you think you’re being smart


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Why not take tactics and systems into account? Because they are s a GIVEN, and can be applied across the board. Are North not playing some sort of team defence these days? Of course they are. They ALL are.

Comparing teams of different eras is an utterly pointless exercise if you can't baseline it against 'the norm' of that era.
Including tactics and systems as the game EVOLVES means that OBVIOUSLY more recent teams could beat teams of different eras IF TIME TRAVEL WAS POSSIBLE.

It's getting very boring pointing this out to you.

 

[Fadge]

Why not take tactics and systems into account? Because they are s a GIVEN, and can be applied across the board. Are North not playing some sort of team defence these days? Of course they are. They ALL are.

Comparing teams of different eras is an utterly pointless exercise if you can't baseline it against 'the norm' of that era.
Including tactics and systems as the game EVOLVES means that OBVIOUSLY more recent teams could beat teams of different eras IF TIME TRAVEL WAS POSSIBLE.

It's getting very boring pointing this out to you.

You can point it out until the cows come home... the dude simply does not have the mental aptitude to grasp it.

 

[Fadge]

Hawks and Tigers have a star on every line, Cats and Lions don’t. That’s the difference, what you do guys reckon?

I reckon you're deluded.

 

[Fadge]

Lethal and Dunstal are in that team bro and it’s 5 flags to 1. As I’ve said numerous times evolution only provides an edge it doesn’t mean automatically better. They were also both in the 1v1 era. Not much difference compared to today.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You do realise that Lethal only played in one of Hawthorn's flags in the 1980's, don't you?!?