Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers

[Rasha]

We have been lucky enough as footy fanatics to have witnessed four dynasties during the 21st century so far.

Which is the greatest dynasty out of the four is up for debate though and an argument can be made for any of the dynasties to be the greatest.

Interesting to see which dynasty is the greatest now that all four dynasties are over.

After all, dynasties are judged in retrospect, not in advance or while they are still going.

 

[Juice030103]

Hawks for me. Unreal side. Just felt the most dominant

 

[Maddogmetro]

Hawthorn felt unbeatable during their reign.

As soon as they made finals, you knew they were going to win it all.

To me, the Hawks felt like the most dominant of all the teams you've listed.

 

[windyhill]

 

[Rasha]

Interesting to see how these teams are judged now they're all judged in retrospect.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Probably comes down to the two 3 peat/4 G F in a row teams. For me the 2002 Lions are the best individual team

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Brisbane

 

[Rod Stroker]

Probably Lions. 3 flags in a row, 4 GFs in a row (yes I know, Hawks the same), but Brisbane had to travel more than anyone to get theirs.

Hawks second. 3 flags in a row, 4 GFs in a row. Let a unique opportunity slip, going for 4 in a row in 2016, was top of the ladder with 2 rounds to go, finished 3rd, out in straight sets.

Cats third. 3 flags in 5 years, 4 GF's in 5 years, 5 consecutive prelims. Amazing

Richmond last in comparison to the others because their record doesn't match the rest. 3 flags in 4 years, 4 consecutive prelims, then slumped to 12th with only 9 wins.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Whilst I respect that Richmond's dynasty is now over and this thread has been created for a 'full retrospective', I'm not sure an exact replica thread was warranted given all the arguments were done to death (and it appears few are picking Richmond anyway).

As for me, I have some bias but:

I think it has to be between Brisbane and Hawthorn because I rate the threepeat (and 4 GF's in a row) as a higher achievement.

To separate the pair, I think:

(a) Brisbane has arguably the best team "on-paper"
(b) Hawthorn had more wins, greater percentage, greater GF winning margins, etc.
(c) Hawthorn did not have additional salary cap assistance
(d) Brisbane had slightly tougher conditions due to finals travel
(e) I think Hawthorn's 2008 flag can act as a tie-breaker of sorts given it's proximity, same coach, many of the same key players, etc.

Overall: Hawthorn for me

(Note: I certainly don't subscribe to the argument that Brisbane had tougher Grand Final opponents. Yes, Hawthorn won their Grand Finals by more but the performance of those teams through the year was far superior to the opponents of the Lions. Even just looking back that the Collingwood team, it is a miracle they went as far as they did with the players they had (and how many losses they had through the year)).

N.B. Had Geelong won 2008 and 3-peated, I think it would be them as the 'tie-breakers' (number of wins, percentage, etc) would favour them rather than Hawthorn.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Probably Lions. 3 flags in a row, 4 GFs in a row (yes I know, Hawks the same), but Brisbane had to travel more than anyone to get theirs.

Hawks second. 3 flags in a row, 4 GFs in a row. Let a unique opportunity slip, going for 4 in a row in 2016, was top of the ladder with 2 rounds to go, finished 3rd, out in straight sets.

Cats third. 3 flags in 5 years, 4 GF's in 5 years, 5 consecutive prelims. Amazing

Richmond last in comparison to the others because their record doesn't match the rest. 3 flags in 4 years, 4 consecutive prelims, then slumped to 12th with only 9 wins.

Have no problems with your rankings or rationale but wanted to mention that I don't think Hawthorn falling away at the end of 2016 has much relevance given Hawthorn were the closest to a "4-peat". Hawthorn were leading late in the 4th quarter of the 2012 GF (before hitting the post twice) in a see sawing contest that they eventually lost after two late goals deep in time on. Brisbane, on the other hand, were soundly beaten (by 40 points) in their 4th Grand Final after being destroyed after half time (11 goals to 3).

 

[PhatBoy]

Not really sure of the need to go over this again.

Nonetheless i will say something (and I can’t believe I’m defending Richmond) that I think is relevant.

It comes down to the now cliched achievement vs quality argument.

People seem to define these teams often by what they see as the ‘greatest achievement’ among the four sides.

Which usually comes down to the two threepeat sides.

Richmond I can see in an example above have been marked down somewhat for sliding from 3 flags in 4 years to 12th where the other teams were at the absolute pointy end over 5 years.


The Cats are always marked down because they didn’t win 3 in 3.

There are two schools of thought - that it is harder to win 3 in a row than 3 in 5 - I don’t know a conclusive way either side can prove that.


If you look at 3 straight flags as a greater achievement than 3 in 5, that’s fair enough.

My question usually comes back to this though:


In a fantasy four-team tournament, if they all had to play each other a certain amount of times, do you really think Geelong 07-11 would give away a 30 point lead midway through the third quarter when someone draws to its attention that their opponent won 3 flags in a row?

I tend to assess the actual quality of the teams rather than just looking at a sequence of premierships.

Anyone who reads my posts knows I’m fond of a sporting analogy.


If in a few years when Nadal, Djokovic and Federer have all retired, someone comes out and wins a calendar grand slam, they’ll have outdone anything those three ever achieved. Will anyone seriously suggest though that, say Daniel Medvedev’s level of tennis would have been good enough to beat, say, the Federer of various 3-slam calendar years?

 

[staffonly]

Geelong been there abouts for over 15 years. Beat better teams in Grand Finals and prelims.

 

[Fadge]

Great idea for a thread.

 

[Fadge]

Whoops.

Tigers with only 6% of the votes.

OP needs to call for reinforcements...

 

[Dirty Bird]

For the 4 options in the poll, Brisbane without a doubt.

However, if you included 2004 for Brisbane and 2012 for hawthorn, you can start contemplating others.
Not sure who I'd pick, but you've given me options of 3 premierships in 5 years, 3 premierships in 4 years, and 2x 3 premierships in 3 years
WIth the options. Brisbane > Hawthorn. But those slight tweaks (including '04 and '12 makes it a whole lot more interesting.

 

[BF Tiger]

Brisbane for me. Travelled the most. Were cruelly robbed of a genuine shot at four consecutive flags by AFL contracts.

 

[Rod Stroker]

Brisbane for me. Travelled the most. Were cruelly robbed of a genuine shot at four consecutive flags by AFL contracts.

Brisbane players have said that, had that PF been played in Brisbane as it should have been instead of Melbourne, they believe they would have won the GF.

They also got screwed with a shorter turn around time between the PF and GF. Port played Friday night at home. Brisbane played Saturday night in Melb, flew home on Sunday, then back to Melb on Thursday for GF parade.

 

[Xtreme]

Hawks v Lions in a Cable Guy Medievil Times style battle to the death!!!

 

[PhatBoy]

Brisbane players have said that, had that PF been played in Brisbane as it should have been instead of Melbourne, they believe they would have won the GF.

They also got screwed with a shorter turn around time between the PF and GF. Port played Friday night at home. Brisbane played Saturday night in Melb, flew home on Sunday, then back to Melb on Thursday for GF parade.

I’m not disregarding it, but do you really think they’d say anything else?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Thread is weird how it discounts 2012 and subsequently 2008 from Hawthorn’s years of success and dynasty.

Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin, Roughead, Young, Sewell, Guerra(inj), Birchall, Rioli, Lewis, Ellis, all played in the 2012 side.
That’s 11 players who were 2008 premiership players, and 9 of them went on to win again 2013.

 

[Rasha]

Thread is weird how it discounts 2012 and subsequently 2008 from Hawthorn’s years of success and dynasty.

Hodge, Mitchell, Franklin, Roughead, Young, Sewell, Guerra(inj), Birchall, Rioli, Lewis, Ellis, all played in the 2012 side.
That’s 11 players who were 2008 premiership players, and 9 of them went on to win again 2013.

Do you also think 2004 should be included for Brisbane?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Do you also think 2004 should be included for Brisbane?

Yeah, why not?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Not really sure of the need to go over this again.

Nonetheless i will say something (and I can’t believe I’m defending Richmond) that I think is relevant.

It comes down to the now cliched achievement vs quality argument.

People seem to define these teams often by what they see as the ‘greatest achievement’ among the four sides.

Which usually comes down to the two threepeat sides.

Richmond I can see in an example above have been marked down somewhat for sliding from 3 flags in 4 years to 12th where the other teams were at the absolute pointy end over 5 years.


The Cats are always marked down because they didn’t win 3 in 3.

There are two schools of thought - that it is harder to win 3 in a row than 3 in 5 - I don’t know a conclusive way either side can prove that.


If you look at 3 straight flags as a greater achievement than 3 in 5, that’s fair enough.

My question usually comes back to this though:


In a fantasy four-team tournament, if they all had to play each other a certain amount of times, do you really think Geelong 07-11 would give away a 30 point lead midway through the third quarter when someone draws to its attention that their opponent won 3 flags in a row?

I tend to assess the actual quality of the teams rather than just looking at a sequence of premierships.

Anyone who reads my posts knows I’m fond of a sporting analogy.


If in a few years when Nadal, Djokovic and Federer have all retired, someone comes out and wins a calendar grand slam, they’ll have outdone anything those three ever achieved. Will anyone seriously suggest though that, say Daniel Medvedev’s level of tennis would have been good enough to beat, say, the Federer of various 3-slam calendar years?

I believe the analogy here to be poor.

Leaving aside the fact that a player like Medvedev is very unlikely to do a Calendar slam as they are very rare, even amongst all time greats, the analogy only holds if Medvedev wins the same number of slams as Federer (20odd) but does so whilst winning calendar slams instead of over a longer period. For him to win 20 slams (currently on 1) including calendar slams would require him to go to a level miles above where he is now. If he were to do that, then he may well beat Fed 1 on 1 anyway.

I think you have to measure it on achievements rather than a sense of who would win 1 on 1 otherwise you get people saying stuff like Gold Coast 2021 > Hawthorn 1980s, etc which makes all comparative arguments pointless.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Richmond constantly flogged teams in finals and created a new game style that other teams couldn't replicate.

 

[Rasha]

Whoops.

Tigers with only 6% of the votes.

OP needs to call for reinforcements...

13% now.
I doubt you'll find a single Tigers supporter who would lose sleep if we were the worst triple premiership side of the 21st century.