- Dec 11, 2010
- 10,699
- 12,431
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Voss broke his leg and we finished last. On the bright side we picked up Headland with pick 1 who was a key cog up until 2002
Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers
- Thread starter Rasha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Voss broke his leg and we finished last. On the bright side we picked up Headland with pick 1 who was a key cog up until 2002
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,853
- 10,595
- AFL Club
- Richmond
So do you remember 2016...no deranged screaming 'STAND' by the umpire and defenders forced to stand still while attackers stroll past them, no 6-6-6, no run 30 metres out of the goalsquare for kickouts before a defender is allowed to engage.
2021 and 2016 wouldn't recognize each other
2012-2016, 2007-2011, 2000-2004 didn't change significantly...honestly you could fairly say that 2001-2016 are more or less the game as we knew it and as it had been for decades.
The great change happened in the last few years, exactly corresponding to Richmond's Dynasty.
I think that is simple fact incontrivertible,
Yep like the supposed Geelong dynasty team. They were pretty average in retrospect. Debatable if they are even a Dynasty.
- May 5, 2016
- 47,702
- 53,541
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Mate the game of cricket was changed because of Trevor Chappell. It doesn’t make him the best bowler of his generation
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,853
- 10,595
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Isn't that the literal disanalogy?! Underarm bowling was never part of cricket and not something that made cricket unique.
The rule changes during Richmond's dynasty have:
-reduced contested footy (for 100+ plus years the contest has been revered as central to the game)
-radically increased 'forbidden zones' in the game (the forbidden zone-free, 360 degree nature of AFL has always been considered its unique quality compared to all the other footy codes)
The fact that these central tenets of the game and been so attacked during Richmond's dynasty...well you can draw the conclusions you prefer, but it is undeniabled that there has never been a dynasty that has changed the game the way Richmond has.
Really hard to argue that it is not the dominant dynasty.
- May 5, 2016
- 47,702
- 53,541
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,853
- 10,595
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I didn't see that, yeah I'm focusing more on legacy.
It is a terrible legacy mind you, a completely unwanted one. Thankfully Hocking is gone now and soon enough Gill, then I hope they repeal all this 'STAND' and excluded zone rubbish.
Let's bring footy back to what it has always been, an equal contest between defender and attacker, who cares if one team is better at it than others, don't change the rules and make the game contest-lite, develop new tactics!
Really? No one has bothered providing that argument because it is so friggen obvious. I’ve never seen anybody comprehensively explain why driving p1ssed with a blindfold on might be considered dangerous either…but I guess some things just don’t require longwinded explanations. Not to most people anyway.
Have you ever played footy? Anyone with even an u/10’s pedigree knows why 3 in a row is valued the highest. It is incredibly difficult to get a group of 40 or so lads up to win a B2B, that’s why B2B is so highly rated. Exponentially more for a 3-peat. Hard to believe this even requires explanation. 3 in 5 is a fantastic achievement, but I’d reckon 100% of Cats players would swap that for a3-peat.
So for mine: Hawks, Brisbane, Tigers and Cats. Hate to put Cats 4th as their ‘07 - ‘11 side would’ve manhandled the Tigers IMO. And that’s discounting our other flag from 5 years earlier that half the 2013 played in that most people seem to weirdly discount.
So Hawks for me over the Lions…just shading the Hawks juggernaut of the 80’s/ early 90’s.
EDIT: Just wanted to also clarify something someone said a few pages ago…that Hawks had shite competition. Not only did we smack what was described as arguably one of the GOAT sides in Geelong in 2008 (with one of the youngest GF sides in history), we dominated our era with a peak Geelong side that would’ve made their current iteration look like schoolboys, a rampant $ydney side, Freo with their Purple Haze, dismantled the Weagles Web, and ousted some top-shelf St Kilda and Collingwood sides also. Was nothing wrong with the quality of our era.
Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
Hate to say it but it's Geelong for one simple reason. Tougher contemporaries.
Brisbane knocked Essendon off their perch but did so with COLA and IV treatments on the hot day of the 2001 GF. Plus Essendon had injuries and only made the grand final due to Darren Goldspink. They then benefited from Port choking, an over-achieving Swans and Collingwood and actual salary-cap policing pulling Essendon's team apart (their own fault as they had tried to go outside the cap with the dodgy Hird and Lloyd deals).
Hawthorn didn't have much by way of competition. Chris Scott's Geelong (lol). COLA Swans. Over-achieving Eagles. Ross Lyon's Freo. They were the only competent Victorian team in the room at the business end of the season and even then still nearly blew it against Adelaide in 2012 and Port in 2014 prelims. A far more credible Hawks three-peat would've been 2011-12-13 but Clarkson decided Ryan Schoenmakers playing was more important than winning. If you don't believe me, actually go back and watch the footage of the 2011 and 2012 prelims. Then ask yourself how Clarkson is considered a supercoach. The argument of "compromised drafts" gets raised by some Victorian clubs but it's at the very bottom of the list of dings on the Hawthorn flags. Heck on reflection winning either 2011 or 2012 in isolation would have been a better achievement than the three-peat of 2013-14-15.
Richmond did well to mentally destroy the Crows by winning 2017 and certainly set the Giants back by winning 2019 but we can't kid ourself that shortened quarters and a grand final at the Gabba of all places makes it more of a two-and-a-bit-peat rather than a three-out-of-of-four-peat. It's a credible premiership in its own right. It's just not adequately comparable to anything else.
Geelong had to beat St Kilda 2009 who were a superteam, then re-tool and beat Collingwood 2011 who by all measures except literally only their head-to-head record against Geelong were an even super-er team. 2011 was a boring as **** season due to the uncompetitive top pair on the ladder but also hugely credible due to how dominant Geelong were against Collingwood. Smashed them three times. In any other year Collingwood 2011 would be drawing comparisons to Essendon 2000. Only problem was the three games they lost to Geelong. Geelong's wins are stronger and more credible. Even the 2007 cakewalk and 2008 choke have aged well given what followed.
Brisbane knocked Essendon off their perch but did so with COLA and IV treatments on the hot day of the 2001 GF. Plus Essendon had injuries and only made the grand final due to Darren Goldspink. They then benefited from Port choking, an over-achieving Swans and Collingwood and actual salary-cap policing pulling Essendon's team apart (their own fault as they had tried to go outside the cap with the dodgy Hird and Lloyd deals).
Hawthorn didn't have much by way of competition. Chris Scott's Geelong (lol). COLA Swans. Over-achieving Eagles. Ross Lyon's Freo. They were the only competent Victorian team in the room at the business end of the season and even then still nearly blew it against Adelaide in 2012 and Port in 2014 prelims. A far more credible Hawks three-peat would've been 2011-12-13 but Clarkson decided Ryan Schoenmakers playing was more important than winning. If you don't believe me, actually go back and watch the footage of the 2011 and 2012 prelims. Then ask yourself how Clarkson is considered a supercoach. The argument of "compromised drafts" gets raised by some Victorian clubs but it's at the very bottom of the list of dings on the Hawthorn flags. Heck on reflection winning either 2011 or 2012 in isolation would have been a better achievement than the three-peat of 2013-14-15.
Richmond did well to mentally destroy the Crows by winning 2017 and certainly set the Giants back by winning 2019 but we can't kid ourself that shortened quarters and a grand final at the Gabba of all places makes it more of a two-and-a-bit-peat rather than a three-out-of-of-four-peat. It's a credible premiership in its own right. It's just not adequately comparable to anything else.
Geelong had to beat St Kilda 2009 who were a superteam, then re-tool and beat Collingwood 2011 who by all measures except literally only their head-to-head record against Geelong were an even super-er team. 2011 was a boring as **** season due to the uncompetitive top pair on the ladder but also hugely credible due to how dominant Geelong were against Collingwood. Smashed them three times. In any other year Collingwood 2011 would be drawing comparisons to Essendon 2000. Only problem was the three games they lost to Geelong. Geelong's wins are stronger and more credible. Even the 2007 cakewalk and 2008 choke have aged well given what followed.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
6-6-6 was brought in for 2019, after the Eagles won the flag so attributing that to Richmond is incorrect. The 'stand' rule isn't actually a rule, the umpires just tightened up how the mark is to be manned. Neither of these were specific to Richmond but to increase 'flow' in the game. That is not changing the fabric of the game.
The Luke Hodge/Joel Bowden change to the rushed behind rule was much more impactful. The deliberate out of bounds rule was also much more impactful.
All I see in your post and other Richmond supporters who parrot the same stuff is a way of coping with the teams decline. The AFL changed the rules not because of Richmond, but because teams are scoring less and less every year and it impacts ad revenue firstly, and viewer enjoyment secondly when teams aren't kicking goals.
I put it to you that under any policing of the deliberate rushed behind rule, in any year between 2009 and 2021, maximum three Hawthorn rushed behinds from the 2008 grand final would get pinged. One of which was Mark Williams kicking the rushed behind after the game was done and dusted in the last quarter. People massively overblow it given how it is actually umpired in reality since the rule came in.
Wojcinski
Brownlow Medallist
oh I'm not using it as an excuse or anything, but the way it gets umpired now has meant teams have different defensive options when the ball is close to goal. I know seeing Blicavs panic in the oppo goal square before kicking it straight to an opposition player 3 times a game has burnt it into my mind how easy it used to be to get out of those situations
- May 21, 2015
- 4,616
- 6,944
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Give me Richmond's gameplan over Geelong's chip scab keepings off gameplan anyday.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,853
- 10,595
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Rushed behind rule is certainly from another era! It took away a 'safe space' for defenders and so encouraged contested ball. That's a normal footy rule!
The rules bought in the Richmond Era are all about contriving safe spaces, forbidden zones you can't enter (and if you do you must be a statue wtf) where contests and pressure are removed.
The only cousins of the major rule changes of the last 4 years are the advent of the 'Centre Square' in the mid-70s, and deliberate OOB/OOBOTF rules of earlier years.
That's pretty much it for about 140 years, back to the 1870s!
Again, the magnitude of the Richmond Era's effect on the game just monsters the others being discussed here.
Peter Ryan gave a good summary a few years ago in The Age as these rules started coming in:
That's pretty disingenuous. Tigers 2020 didn't play one game all year with home ground advantage, spent ~105 days or so in a hub, endured constant media criticism, ridiculous match day reports which drove up the media hysteria, and a scandal or two, yet still won the flag. When every coach says it's going to be one of the best and hardest flags ever to win, I don't see how you can knock it down a peg.
By your logic, I could easily say that the Hawks won flags in eras of compromised drafts, and so their 3 flags is more like 1.5... see how stupid that sounds?
My take is that including Hawthorn 2008, it's clearly Hawks > Lions > Tigers > Cats. 3 A 3-peat beats 3 in 4 which beats 3 in 5.
Lastly the Tigers dynasty is not over. If we win in '22 then that'd be 4 in 6 which makes the conversation interesting.
Last edited:
- Sep 15, 2005
- 13,499
- 22,281
- AFL Club
- Geelong
These days, yes, absolutely - wasn't the case during the Bomber years nor Chris Scott's 1st year with the club.
The issue was how the rules were brought in and who they disadvantaged. For example:
Ruck rule was changed at the end of '17 so that a ruck could grab the ball without being pinged holding the ball. Our second ruck in 2018 was Grigg. This rule greatly disadvantaged us against teams with big ruckmen.
6-6-6 was introduced at the start of '19. In 2018 the team that set up in 6-6-6 format the least was the Tigers, something like 2% of center bounces we set up that way. So the rule theoretically disadvantaged us the most.
Forget when the kick-in rule was changed. But the Tigers from 2017-2018 were renowned for their forward pressure. We took ground, locked the ball in, and then setup behind the ball. Giving teams an extra 15m head start to escape the zone was detrimental to our system.
The stand rule. There's a media snippet that said that Hocking didn't like the way the Tigers pushed the envelope when manning the mark. If you go watch any of our games from 2017-2020, we were absolutely manic when manning the mark. Jumping up and down, side to side. The stand rule took away a legitimate skill in the game that we implemented better than any other team. Note that Hocking also brought this rule in a couple of weeks before the season, and only trialed the rule at Geelong (no conflict of interest there though)...
Now you might be thinking, Dew, this is all a bit conspiratorial for my taste. And you wouldn't be entirely off the mark. Us Tigers are an emotional bunch. But these are a raft of rules that were introduced to limit a certain type of gamestyle, one that we happened to pioneer and carried us to 3 flags.
The last point is that these rules were supposed to increase scoring. They didn't. Yet they're still in the game with no explanation as to why. That's a massive issue right there.
Last edited:
Hawthorn beat eagles who have a 4-2 AFL grand final record (both defeats by hawthorn) they beat Sydney who have 2-2 Freo are 0-1 so not much to write home about
Geelong beat port (1-1) collingwood (2-4) and st kilda (0-2). You may rate the individual teams higher but they aren’t ‘winning’ clubs
- May 5, 2016
- 47,702
- 53,541
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Really? No one has bothered providing that argument because it is so friggen obvious. I’ve never seen anybody comprehensively explain why driving p1ssed with a blindfold on might be considered dangerous either…but I guess some things just don’t require longwinded explanations. Not to most people anyway.
Have you ever played footy? Anyone with even an u/10’s pedigree knows why 3 in a row is valued the highest. It is incredibly difficult to get a group of 40 or so lads up to win a B2B, that’s why B2B is so highly rated. Exponentially more for a 3-peat. Hard to believe this even requires explanation. 3 in 5 is a fantastic achievement, but I’d reckon 100% of Cats players would swap that for a3-peat.
So for mine: Hawks, Brisbane, Tigers and Cats. Hate to put Cats 4th as their ‘07 - ‘11 side would’ve manhandled the Tigers IMO. And that’s discounting our other flag from 5 years earlier that half the 2013 played in that most people seem to weirdly discount.
So Hawks for me over the Lions…just shading the Hawks juggernaut of the 80’s/ early 90’s.
EDIT: Just wanted to also clarify something someone said a few pages ago…that Hawks had sh*te competition. Not only did we smack what was described as arguably one of the GOAT sides in Geelong in 2008 (with one of the youngest GF sides in history), we dominated our era with a peak Geelong side that would’ve made their current iteration look like schoolboys, a rampant $ydney side, Freo with their Purple Haze, dismantled the Weagles Web, and ousted some top-shelf St Kilda and Collingwood sides also. Was nothing wrong with the quality of our era.
Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
It’s incredibly difficult to win 3 in 5 years. F*** all teams have been able to do it.
Who cares - it’s the same achievement. You don’t get a bigger trophy after your third title because it comes consecutively.
Yep. One of the most important elements of a dynasty in any context is 'length of time'. It is astounding people see elite performance levels over 3 years, and rate that higher than a team who using all statistical measures available played at a higher level for 5 years, and had the same level of ultimate success.
Should we bring the Essendon 2000 team into the discussion? They had a 100% record in Grand Finals between 2000 and..... 2000, but their season is generally regarded as the best single season in the history of the game.
Last edited:
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Sweet F.A. Reigning Premiers - East Side Hawks Season 38 - SFA
Sweet FA 500 Games Played
The Scales Award for Essendon Poster of the Year
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Veteran
East Side Hawks - Sweet F.A.
Tasmanian Team
One season isn't a dynasty.
DavidInellaFanClub
Team Captain
If you were doing a best 22 of these sides. Do any other Richmond players make this side other than Dusty? You could make a case for Rance/Grimes but do they get a spot over Scarlett/Michael/Leppitsch? Doubtful.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
- Poll
