Best team of the 21st Century?

[VineyIsLORD]

Hawthorn had the benefit of an expanded league and compromised drafts and introduction of free agency all at the same tike as they were at their peak. Their competition wasnt as good.

Brisbane had the advantage of extra salary cap space and getting to squish two sides together due to a merger.

Both really good teams with really big asterisks.

 

[mfcrox]

Threepeat and four flags in the 2000s.

There's your answer.

Brisbane: Threepeat on the MCG against Victorian teams that play at the MCG every second week. There is your answer.

Match Hawthorn's best 18 for their threepeat against Brisbane's best 18 for their threepeat and it is just obvious who the better side is.

 

[PhatBoy]

I'm a latecomer here so haven't seen the past discussions.

Aside from the 4 to 3 premiership stat that Hawthorn has over Geelong and Brisbane, it is pretty even whichever way you look at it.
Essendon in 2000 and Geelong in 2007 are the two best single-season teams by a mile. Ok, the Cats were 2-3 after 5 rounds which obviously muddies the waters, but from round 6 onwards they played the best football I've ever seen. It wasn't just dominant - it was amazing, and great to watch (obviously I'm biased). Had it not been for Henry Playfair inexplicably trying to find support instead of just kicking it with 10 seconds to go in round 21, we would have won 28 games on the trot over that year and up until round 9 of 2008.

No side in history has the sort of win rate over 200 games that we did from round 6, 2007 onwards.

So overall, I think the Cats team was the best week-to-week side this millenium, and 3 flags proves it wasn't just a case of being good in H and A matches.
On the flipside, there has arguably never been a better team at winning when it counts and rising to the occasion like Brisbane did. The fact that they came along and won 3 flags when everyone assumed Essendon would have a peerless dynasty enhances them, too.

Hawthorn to me are somewhere in between. They are a better H and A side than Brisbane, a worse H and A side than Geelong, slightly better finals side than Geelong, slightly inferior finals side to Brisbane IMO. It's much of a muchness though.

I think if you picked the best 22 from each side over their golden era, the Cats' would be number one. That's not bias, that's my opinion based on what each player has done with their career. I think they'd win more than 50 per cent against the best Brisbane and best Hawthorn sides. But in a finals scenario I don't think that is necessarily the case.

It's pretty f***ing hard to split them all.

 

[Badesumofu]

Well of course I would say Hawthorn

 

[Unfinished]

Hawthorn had the benefit of an expanded league and compromised drafts and introduction of free agency all at the same tike as they were at their peak. Their competition wasnt as good.

Brisbane had the advantage of extra salary cap space and getting to squish two sides together due to a merger.

Both really good teams with really big asterisks.

Yes because the introduction of free agency and losing our best player to another contender for nothing is such an advantage

 

[Unfinished]

Hawthorn had the benefit of an expanded league and compromised drafts and introduction of free agency all at the same tike as they were at their peak. Their competition wasnt as good.

Brisbane had the advantage of extra salary cap space and getting to squish two sides together due to a merger.

Both really good teams with really big asterisks.

On your other point about Hawthorn's competition being no good.. Hawthorn in 2008 beat a Geelong side who was supposedly one of the best teams ever.. And the Hawthorn three peat side was much better than the 2008 Hawthorn aide, so maybe just maybe, you can look behind your blind hatred and see that maybe the other teams were good, but Hawthorn was just too damn good.

I'd comfortably back Fremantle 2013 side and Sydney 2014 sides to beat those two Collingwood teams.. Hell Sydney was meant to flog us in 2014.

Your logic is seriously flawed.

 

[demondavey]

There is probably 50 threads on this topic over the last 12-18 months if you are interested to search.

FWIW, Essendon clearly the best single season (Geelong '08 may have trumped if they won the GF).

As for best dynasty there is no 'right' answer, only opinions. One thing I will say though is that Brisbane having an 'air of invincibility' I think is the effect of time (and many on here being young when Brisbane were dominant) as the facts suggest otherwise. I mean, consider:

• Brisbane were never minor premiers (as you said) and finished higher than Port once between 2001-2004 (Geelong and Hawthorn were both minor premiers multiple times and were the clear best side all year in certain seasons)
• Even in finals, Brisbane went 1-1 with Port (with Port winning the most important one - '04 GF).
• Brisbane won 48 regular season games and 9 finals in their three-peat. Hawthorn won 52 regular season games and 9 finals in theirs. If you include the year each side lost the GF, the win-loss favours Hawthorn even further (Geelong's win-loss even better depending on the year).
• Hawthorn's percentage over the three peat is also far ahead of Brisbane's (Geelong moreso in their flag years).
• Over the 3 GF's, Brisbane's cumulative winning margin is 85 pts, which includes a 9 pt escape over an average Collingwood side that only won 13 games. Hawthorn's cumulative margin is 124 points (an average winning margin of 41 pts in Grand finals).
• If you include the GF each side lost, Hawthorn's cumulative drops to 114 after being minor premiers, leading in the last and choking against Sydney by 10 pts in 2012. Brisbane's cumulative drops to 45 after being smacked by the minor premiers by 8 goals in the GF.
• Of course, there is the minor point that Hawthorn also won an flag additional only a couple of years earlier.

Not saying Brisbane is the wrong answer, just that them being more invincible is literally incorrect considering they were beaten more often, won their games by smaller margins, had less dominant records over their opposition and were closer to being beaten on GF day.

Forget a team finished on the ladder, forget how many finals they lost before making the GF, and pretty much forget everything else other than the cup.

Brisbane made 4 grand finals in a row, winning 3 and losing 1. Hawthorn have done exactly the same. Right now, at this point in time, they're equal. This year will decide whether Hawthorn goes above them.

Geelong nowhere near it. Played three in a row, winning two either side of a loss. If they won 08 then they'd be considered.

 

[clivenator26]

Essendon 2000 vs Geelong 2007 would be something special, as would the best of Hawthorn 08-16 vs Brisbane 01-04.

I'll take Essendon by a goal and the Lions by 1 point in extra time.

 

[Seeds]

Home-ground advantage is a significant factor. You've beaten all interstate sides at your homeground, Brisbane beat both Essendon and Collingwood at their home-ground. Unless Hawthorn win again this year then I'd say it'd be neck and neck or brisbane on top due to that factor. I am biased however.

But Brisbane had a salary cap advantage that was greater than what the storm got done for salary cheating. We can think of reasons why one is or isn't the best until the cows come home and they are all subjective as best is a subjective word when the amount of flags is three each.

 

[Seeds]

Essendon 2000 vs Geelong 2007 would be something special, as would the best of Hawthorn 08-16 vs Brisbane 01-04.

I'll take Essendon by a goal and the Lions by 1 point in extra time.

Hawthorn had some pretty average years between 08 and 16. If you are just taking the best do you want to narrow it down a tad?

 

[Seeds]

Threepeat and four flags in the 2000s.

There's your answer.

But never dominated over the competition at any point unlike Brisbane, Essendon 2000, geelong in 2007 and 2011 or even briefly collingwood 2011 and saints of 2009. They never had the aura of brilliance.

 

[Lithium]

But never dominated over the competition at any point unlike Brisbane, Essendon 2000, geelong in 2007 and 2011 or even briefly collingwood 2011 and saints of 2009. They never had the aura of brilliance.

Went very close to doing that in 13 where we only lost 3 games. 14 was quite dominate as well, most of the games we did loose we had significant injuries.
Not Geelong 08 levels or Essendon 2000 levels but at times during our era we have come close.

 

[clivenator26]

Hawthorn had some pretty average years between 08 and 16. If you are just taking the best do you want to narrow it down a tad?

We will take their 3-peat then. Interested to hear from Hawks & Lions fans what their "Best of 3-peat" teams would look like. And may as well throw in Geelong for good measure given they win 3 in 5 years.

 

[Baby Duck]

This will always end in a Hawks circle-jerk. Might as well close the thread now.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Match Hawthorn's best 18 for their threepeat against Brisbane's best 18 for their threepeat and it is just obvious who the better side is.

It's not just about the 18 names on the park.

Leigh Matthews and Alastair Clarkson are incredibly significant, and Hawthorn have a clear advantage there.

 

[Lithium]

We will take their 3-peat then. Interested to hear from Hawks & Lions fans what their "Best of 3-peat" teams would look like. And may as well throw in Geelong for good measure given they win 3 in 5 years.

FB: Straton Lake Gibson
HB: Birchell Frawley Hodge
C: Hill Lewis Smith
HF Cyril Franklin Gunston
FF: Bruest Roughhead Poupolo
F: Hale Mitchell Shiels
B: Burgoyne Mcevoy Guera Durya

Probably forgot a few but that's a rough go

 

[mfcrox]

It's not just about the 18 names on the park.

Leigh Matthews and Alastair Clarkson are incredibly significant, and Hawthorn have a clear advantage there.

Thanks for replying to something I wrote 2mths ago

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Thanks for replying to something I wrote 2mths ago

For some reason I thought this thread started today.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

We will take their 3-peat then. Interested to hear from Hawks & Lions fans what their "Best of 3-peat" teams would look like. And may as well throw in Geelong for good measure given they win 3 in 5 years.

Here's my team I've knocked up in five minutes:

B: Ben Stratton, Brian Lake, Josh Gibson
HB: Shaun Burgoyne, James Frawley, Grant Birchall
C: Bradley Hill, Sam Mitchell, Isaac Smith
HF: Luke Breust, Lance Franklin, Cyril Rioli
F: Paul Puopolo, Jarryd Roughead, Jack Gunston
Foll: David Hale, Luke Hodge, Jordan Lewis
I/C: Liam Shiels, Taylor Duryea, Matthew Suckling, Ben McEvoy

Omitted from the team: Jonathan Simpkin, Matthew Spangher, Will Langford, Ryan Schoenmakers, Brad Sewell, Max Bailey, Brent Guerra

 

[Roddy]

4 flags from 5 GF appearances in 9 years, including the threepeat. No one comes within several bull's roars of that. You can try to twist it any way you like in your Hawk-envying desperation, you can bleat about 'compromised drafts' and pointless matchups (which are utterly meaningless, as team sport is all about how the whole team performs on the day, not individual players) but them's the facts. Untouchable.

 

[Dom PC]

4 flags from 5 GF appearances in 9 years, including the threepeat. No one comes within several bull's roars of that. You can try to twist it any way you like in your Hawk-envying desperation, you can bleat about 'compromised drafts' and pointless matchups (which are utterly meaningless, as team sport is all about how the whole team performs on the day, not individual players) but them's the facts. Untouchable.

I think you are confusing "team" with "club"

Worth also noting that the Lions won 20 games in a row. Thats the equal 2nd greatest winning streak of all time.

 

[mfcrox]

4 flags from 5 GF appearances in 9 years, including the threepeat. No one comes within several bull's roars of that. You can try to twist it any way you like in your Hawk-envying desperation, you can bleat about 'compromised drafts' and pointless matchups (which are utterly meaningless, as team sport is all about how the whole team performs on the day, not individual players) but them's the facts. Untouchable.

Look up Melbourne 1954-1964 then consider editing your post.

Edit:
Actually, I'll save you the effort:
1954 - Grand Final (Runners Up)
1955 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1956 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1957 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1958 - Grand Final (Runners Up)
1959 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1960 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1961 - Third
1962 - Fourth
1963 - Third
1964 - Grand Final (Premiers)

 

[Sttew]

Here am I thinking this was going to be a team of the best players of the 21st Century.

 

[Lithium]

Look up Melbourne 1954-1964 then consider editing your post.

Edit:
Actually, I'll save you the effort:
1954 - Grand Final (Runners Up)
1955 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1956 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1957 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1958 - Grand Final (Runners Up)
1959 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1960 - Grand Final (Premiers)
1961 - Third
1962 - Fourth
1963 - Third
1964 - Grand Final (Premiers)

Can't see any reason why Melbourne of the 50's and 60's wouldn't be the best side of the 21st century

 

[Seeds]

4 flags from 5 GF appearances in 9 years, including the threepeat. No one comes within several bull's roars of that. You can try to twist it any way you like in your Hawk-envying desperation, you can bleat about 'compromised drafts' and pointless matchups (which are utterly meaningless, as team sport is all about how the whole team performs on the day, not individual players) but them's the facts. Untouchable.

You do get that 3 is only one less than 4 right? And when that extra 1 is 5 years previous its a bit dubious to really count it.