Hawthorn - four peat?

[Dan26]

There is a lot of sick-inducing congratulations of how good Hawthorn are, but some things need to be put in perspective.

They are not that good THIS year. Their 13-3 win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. They have a percentage less than 120%, they have the 4th-best attack and 6th best defence.

This thing about, "good teams always find a way to win the close ones" is rubbish too. Close wins are primarily luck, and any of the 4 "less than a goal" victories they have had could have gone the other way. Consider that last year, Hawthorn, who won the premiership wth a percentage of 158% (making them about 6 goals better than the 2016 team) lost 4 close games by 2,4, 8, and 10 points. They only won one close game, over Collingwood by 10 points.

I don't recall anyone saying that Hawthorn was good at winning the close ones last year, because, quite simply - they weren't. If good teams always win the close wins, then why did a far superior Hawthorn team fail in almost every close match last year? They were 1-4 in games decided by 10 points or less last year, and over the last two seasons combined they are 6-4. That's hardly winning every close game.

They remind me of two teams: Fremantle of 2015 and Geelong of 2014.

Both Fremantle and Geelong in those years finished with 17 wins, a percentage of UNDER 120% and won a lot of close games throughout the year. Geelong went out in straight sets and Fremantle lost the Preliminary Final.

Hawthorn are still good, but they are ripe for the picking. One of the other contenders just has to have the gumption to believe in themselves, and they will beat them. I could be wrong, and I'm happy to have this quoted against me if they win it again, but all footy logic and the numbers say that they are off the pace a little bit, and that these close wins are masking some flaws, much like the Cats of 2014.

I have a suspecion Adelaide is the team that will take it up to them and defeat them in either the PF or GF.

 

[Hawkk]

There is a lot of sick-inducing congratulations of how good Hawthorn are, but some things need to be put in perspective.

They are not that good THIS year. Their 13-3 win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. They have a percentage less than 120%, they have the 4th-best attack and 6th best defence.

This thing about, "good teams always find a way to win the close ones" is rubbish too. Close wins are primarily luck, and any of the 4 "less than a goal" victories they have had could have gone the other way. Consider that last year, Hawthorn, who won the premiership wth a percentage of 158% (making them about 6 goals better than the 2016 team) lost 4 close games by 2,4, 8, and 10 points. They only won one close game, over Collingwood by 10 points.

I don't recall anyone saying that Hawthorn was good at winning the close ones last year, because, quite simply - they weren't. If good teams always win the close wins, then why did a far superior Hawthorn team fail in almost every close match last year? They were 1-4 in games decided by 10 points or less last year, and over the last two seasons combined they are 6-4. That's hardly winning every close game.

They remind me of two teams: Fremantle of 2015 and Geelong of 2014.

Both Fremantle and Geelong in those years finished with 17 wins, a percentage of UNDER 120% and won a lot of close games throughout the year. Geelong went out in straight sets and Fremantle lost the Preliminary Final.

Hawthorn are still good, but they are ripe for the picking. One of the other contenders just has to have the gumption to believe in themselves, and they will beat them. I could be wrong, and I'm happy to have this quoted againast me if they win it again, but all footy logic and the numbers say that they are off the pace a little bit, and that these close wins are masking some flaws, much like the Cats of 2014.

I have a suspecion Adelaide is the team that will take it up to them and defeat them in either the PF or GF.

Not sure the Fremantle / Geelong comparison holds true given the Hawks record against top 8 / top 4 clubs is significantly better. In fact its pretty difficult to get a read on the percentage given the warped scheduling (where Hawthorn havent played Carlton or Collingwood yet). Hawthorn's percentage should and probably will be in a much better place after games against Melbourne, Richmond and Carlton.

Evidently probably the best example of a team that Hawthorn is shadowing is Melbourne 1958 (given the challenges of the 4th successive flag, 5th successive GF etc)

1909 Carlton 8-1-3 134% (2/8) - lost Grand Final (after challenge)
1930 Collingwood 9-3 136% (2/12) - won Grand Final (after challenge)
1942 Melbourne 4-8 78% (9/12) - missed finals
1958 Melbourne 10-2 122% (1/12) - lost Grand Final
2004 Brisbane 11-4 126.8% (2/16) - lost Grand Final
2016 Hawthorn 12-3 120% (1/18) - TBC

Note the mediocre percentage (in relative terms), a gane ahead of Collingwood (144.7%) and Fitzroy (137.4%). Hawthorn 2008-2016 and Melbourne 1948-1958 have many, many similarities...

 

[Dan26]

Yeah. That and Im sure that Hawthotrn 2008 - 2016 (whether it be 4 or 5 flags) wouldnt hold a candle to Essendon 2000

Stay on topic, and don't make it personal about the poster, please. That's somewhat typical of bigfooty and I would have expected more from an experienced poster such as yourself. Disappointing.

Evidently probably the best example of a team that Hawthorn is shadowing is Melbourne 1958 (given the challenges of the 4th successive flag, 5th successive GF etc)

1909 Carlton 8-1-3 134% (2/8) - lost Grand Final (after challenge)
1930 Collingwood 9-3 136% (2/12) - won Grand Final (after challenge)
1942 Melbourne 4-8 78% (9/12) - missed finals
1958 Melbourne 10-2 122% (1/12) - lost Grand Final
2004 Brisbane 11-4 126.8% (2/16) - lost Grand Final
2016 Hawthorn 12-3 120% (1/18) - TBC

Hawthorn have only won 36 of 64 quarters and been in front on the scoreboard 52% of the time.

They aren't that good this year. They are ripe for the picking, if one of the contenders believes in themselves and doesn't let Hawthorn's reputation win the game for them.

 

[Dan26]

Not sure the Fremantle / Geelong comparison holds true given the Hawks record against top 8 / top 4 clubs is significantly better.

Hawthorn's for-and-against and percentage against the other 7 finalists this year is:

696-749 - 92.9%

 

[Hawkk]

Stay on topic, and don't make it personal about the poster, please. That's somewhat typical of bigfooty and I would have expected more from an experienced poster such as yourself. Disappointing.



Hawthorn have only won 36 of 64 quarters and been in front on the scoreboard 52% of the time.

They aren't that good this year. They are ripe for the picking, if one of the contenders believes in themselves and doesn't let Hawthorn's reputation win the game for them.

Fair call. Post has been edited...

That ratio is not to dissimilar from the 1958 Demons. Up to round 12, the Dees went 28-19-1 in quarters won. Far from the dominate super team that is ofter referred to in history books. Of course history is always revisional, look no further than Hawthorn post 2013 and St Kilda after 2009/10

 

[cryptor]

There is a lot of sick-inducing congratulations of how good Hawthorn are, but some things need to be put in perspective.

They are not that good THIS year. Their 13-3 win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. They have a percentage less than 120%, they have the 4th-best attack and 6th best defence.

This thing about, "good teams always find a way to win the close ones" is rubbish too. Close wins are primarily luck, and any of the 4 "less than a goal" victories they have had could have gone the other way. Consider that last year, Hawthorn, who won the premiership wth a percentage of 158% (making them about 6 goals better than the 2016 team) lost 4 close games by 2,4, 8, and 10 points. They only won one close game, over Collingwood by 10 points.

I don't recall anyone saying that Hawthorn was good at winning the close ones last year, because, quite simply - they weren't. If good teams always win the close wins, then why did a far superior Hawthorn team fail in almost every close match last year? They were 1-4 in games decided by 10 points or less last year, and over the last two seasons combined they are 6-4. That's hardly winning every close game.

They remind me of two teams: Fremantle of 2015 and Geelong of 2014.

Both Fremantle and Geelong in those years finished with 17 wins, a percentage of UNDER 120% and won a lot of close games throughout the year. Geelong went out in straight sets and Fremantle lost the Preliminary Final.

Hawthorn are still good, but they are ripe for the picking. One of the other contenders just has to have the gumption to believe in themselves, and they will beat them. I could be wrong, and I'm happy to have this quoted against me if they win it again, but all footy logic and the numbers say that they are off the pace a little bit, and that these close wins are masking some flaws, much like the Cats of 2014.

I have a suspecion Adelaide is the team that will take it up to them and defeat them in either the PF or GF.

 

[Dan26]

Fair call. Post has been edited...

That ratio is not to dissimilar from the 1958 Demons. Up to round 12, the Dees went 28-19-1 in quarters won. Far from the dominate super team that is ofter referred to in history books. Of course history is always revisional, look no further than Hawthorn post 2013 and St Kilda after 2009/10

I agree. Melbourne, in 1958, at least numerically, were not the super team they seemed to be in the years surrounding 1958.

Look, I have a tremendous amount of admiration for Hawthorn, I really do. I hate them and I'm sick of them, and I think what is happening is bad for football, but I legitimately think this will be the year someone knocks them off. The writing is on the wall.

 

[Hawkk]

Hawthorn's for-and-against and percentage against the other 7 finalists this year is:

696-749 - 92.9%

So 5-3 against the top 8 and 2-2 against the top 4 (3-1 if the Dogs displace Geelong)

Those numbers are naturally deflated / inflated by one abhorrent performance against GWS (75pt loss). The other losses for the season were by 30pts and 14pts against the Cats (rd 1) and Swans (after the Roughead news). Not as dominate as 2014/15 but not in the Dockers class either. History is littered with the premier getting belted 'once off' by contenders (ie North by the Swans in 96, Port by North in 04, Lions by Eagles in 03 amongst others). Thats not to say Hawthorn will win it again, as I said I believe Hawthorn 2016 is probably more like Melbourne 1958 or Brisbane 2004 rather than Geelong 2014

 

[Dan26]

So 5-3 against the top 8 and 2-2 against the top 4 (3-1 if the Dogs displace Geelong)

Those numbers are naturally deflated / inflated by one abhorrent performance against GWS (75pt loss). The other losses for the season were by 30pts and 14pts against the Cats (rd 1) and Swans (after the Roughead news). History is littered with the premier getting belted 'once off' by contenders (ie North by the Swans in 96, Port by North in 04, Lions by Eagles in 03 amongst others)

You can't just dismiss the GWS game and say, "Oh, but if we don't count it, the stats look better"

All the games count. If you start excluding certain stats, all you are doing is manipulating the numbers to make them look better for your own teams benefit.

It's a bit like North Melbourne in 1983 (who finished minor-premiers) saying "If you take away our 150-point loss to Fitzroy" everything is okay.

All the games count and all the games go towards painting a picture of where Hawthorn is at. The GWS game is just as relevant as any of the other 15 games.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

There is a lot of sick-inducing congratulations of how good Hawthorn are, but some things need to be put in perspective.

They are not that good THIS year. Their 13-3 win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. They have a percentage less than 120%, they have the 4th-best attack and 6th best defence.

This thing about, "good teams always find a way to win the close ones" is rubbish too. Close wins are primarily luck, and any of the 4 "less than a goal" victories they have had could have gone the other way. Consider that last year, Hawthorn, who won the premiership wth a percentage of 158% (making them about 6 goals better than the 2016 team) lost 4 close games by 2,4, 8, and 10 points. They only won one close game, over Collingwood by 10 points.

I don't recall anyone saying that Hawthorn was good at winning the close ones last year, because, quite simply - they weren't. If good teams always win the close wins, then why did a far superior Hawthorn team fail in almost every close match last year? They were 1-4 in games decided by 10 points or less last year, and over the last two seasons combined they are 6-4. That's hardly winning every close game.

They remind me of two teams: Fremantle of 2015 and Geelong of 2014.

Both Fremantle and Geelong in those years finished with 17 wins, a percentage of UNDER 120% and won a lot of close games throughout the year. Geelong went out in straight sets and Fremantle lost the Preliminary Final.

Hawthorn are still good, but they are ripe for the picking. One of the other contenders just has to have the gumption to believe in themselves, and they will beat them. I could be wrong, and I'm happy to have this quoted against me if they win it again, but all footy logic and the numbers say that they are off the pace a little bit, and that these close wins are masking some flaws, much like the Cats of 2014.

I have a suspecion Adelaide is the team that will take it up to them and defeat them in either the PF or GF.

I definately agree with most, if not all, of that. Hawthorn is not the same side that won the past 3 flags. Their win/loss ratio is a little misleading and their form has not always looked great. They are vulnerable and a good team can knock them off in September as they are definately 'back in the pack'. They are, however, still clear at the top of the ladder and their form is improving which has renewed optimism that they are equally capable of doing it all again in September one last time. I can only hope.

 

[Hawkk]

You can't just dismiss the GWS game and say, "Oh, but if we don't count it, the stats look better"

All the games count. If you start excluding stats, all you are doing is manipulating the numbers to make them look better for your own teams benefit.

It's a bit like North Melbourne in 1983 (who finished minor-premiers) saying "If you take away our 150-point loss to Fitzroy" everything is okay.

All the games count and all the games go towards painting a picture of where Hawthorn is at. The GWS game is just as relevant as any of the other 15 games.

I agree. But like I said there are examples of premier / Grand Final teams getting belted once off in fixtures against top 8 opposition. In the context of determining future results later results should surely have greater weighting than earlier fixtures?

The other factor to consider is that if Hawthorn qualify top 2 and GWS miss the top 4, the Spotless Stadium variable (where the Hawks 75pts, Dogs 24pts and Swans 42pts) have all succumbed) is negated. The Giants equivalent record away from Spotless / Canberra is 0-3 against top 8 opposition. At home its 4-0...

I think the best indicator of finals success is by looking at the contenders results against fellow contenders -

Cats - 6/8 (2-1 v top 4)
Hawks - 5/8 (2-1 v top 4)
Swans - 5/9 (1-3 v top 4)
GWS - 4/7 (2-2 v top 4)
Adelaide - 4/8 (1-2 v top 4)
Dogs - 3/7 (1-2 v top 4)
North - 2/7 (2-2 v top 4)
Eagles - 1/6 (0-2 v top 4)

*top 4 was as of the start of the round (Hawks, Swans, Crows, Dogs)

Not much between the Cats, Hawks and Swans based on this...

 

[Happy_Hawker]

There is a lot of sick-inducing congratulations of how good Hawthorn are, but some things need to be put in perspective.

They are not that good THIS year. Their 13-3 win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. They have a percentage less than 120%, they have the 4th-best attack and 6th best defence.

This thing about, "good teams always find a way to win the close ones" is rubbish too. Close wins are primarily luck, and any of the 4 "less than a goal" victories they have had could have gone the other way. Consider that last year, Hawthorn, who won the premiership wth a percentage of 158% (making them about 6 goals better than the 2016 team) lost 4 close games by 2,4, 8, and 10 points. They only won one close game, over Collingwood by 10 points.

I don't recall anyone saying that Hawthorn was good at winning the close ones last year, because, quite simply - they weren't. If good teams always win the close wins, then why did a far superior Hawthorn team fail in almost every close match last year? They were 1-4 in games decided by 10 points or less last year, and over the last two seasons combined they are 6-4. That's hardly winning every close game.

They remind me of two teams: Fremantle of 2015 and Geelong of 2014.

Both Fremantle and Geelong in those years finished with 17 wins, a percentage of UNDER 120% and won a lot of close games throughout the year. Geelong went out in straight sets and Fremantle lost the Preliminary Final.

Hawthorn are still good, but they are ripe for the picking. One of the other contenders just has to have the gumption to believe in themselves, and they will beat them. I could be wrong, and I'm happy to have this quoted against me if they win it again, but all footy logic and the numbers say that they are off the pace a little bit, and that these close wins are masking some flaws, much like the Cats of 2014.

I have a suspecion Adelaide is the team that will take it up to them and defeat them in either the PF or GF.

Fair call IMO. Adelaide tipped to win in squiggle as well, they've taken or mantle as best attacking team this year, and attack tends to win premierships. We are just doing enough to win games atm but we'll have to lift in September and (hopefully!) October. Still a long way to go and we've been lucky with injuries in the main. We'd be stuffed without Frawley, Gunston, Mitchell or Burgoyne for example, as Our depth is also a lot shallower (no decent depth at Box Hill anymore) and we're getting smashed in contested ball. Lucky for us, the Gf is at the G. Reckon if we played Adelaide anywhere else, you'd tip them head to head! Huge advantage having our home and away home ground as the Grand Final venue. If they win it, hats off to them, they've had a very tough last 18 months losing their coach in tragic circumstances and also their best player.

 

[MinerBoy]

There is a lot of sick-inducing congratulations of how good Hawthorn are, but some things need to be put in perspective.

They are not that good THIS year. Their 13-3 win-loss record doesn't tell the full story. They have a percentage less than 120%, they have the 4th-best attack and 6th best defence.

This thing about, "good teams always find a way to win the close ones" is rubbish too. Close wins are primarily luck, and any of the 4 "less than a goal" victories they have had could have gone the other way. Consider that last year, Hawthorn, who won the premiership wth a percentage of 158% (making them about 6 goals better than the 2016 team) lost 4 close games by 2,4, 8, and 10 points. They only won one close game, over Collingwood by 10 points.

I don't recall anyone saying that Hawthorn was good at winning the close ones last year, because, quite simply - they weren't. If good teams always win the close wins, then why did a far superior Hawthorn team fail in almost every close match last year? They were 1-4 in games decided by 10 points or less last year, and over the last two seasons combined they are 6-4. That's hardly winning every close game.

They remind me of two teams: Fremantle of 2015 and Geelong of 2014.

Both Fremantle and Geelong in those years finished with 17 wins, a percentage of UNDER 120% and won a lot of close games throughout the year. Geelong went out in straight sets and Fremantle lost the Preliminary Final.

Hawthorn are still good, but they are ripe for the picking. One of the other contenders just has to have the gumption to believe in themselves, and they will beat them. I could be wrong, and I'm happy to have this quoted against me if they win it again, but all footy logic and the numbers say that they are off the pace a little bit, and that these close wins are masking some flaws, much like the Cats of 2014.

I have a suspecion Adelaide is the team that will take it up to them and defeat them in either the PF or GF.

Don't disagree with any of that. The only difference is that unlike the Cats 2014/Freo 2015, we might actually still be the best team.

As you say though, any one of the other top teams are legitimate chances of beating us in any game, including finals.

 

[Bokonon]

You can't just dismiss the GWS game and say, "Oh, but if we don't count it, the stats look better"

All the games count. If you start excluding certain stats, all you are doing is manipulating the numbers to make them look better for your own teams benefit.

It's a bit like North Melbourne in 1983 (who finished minor-premiers) saying "If you take away our 150-point loss to Fitzroy" everything is okay.

All the games count and all the games go towards painting a picture of where Hawthorn is at. The GWS game is just as relevant as any of the other 15 games.

I might have read too much much into it but. I've bèen tipping the Hawks to fall off a cliff all season and not make the 4, infuenced no doubt by the fact it's the only time I watched them play.
Not lack of respect, threepeat was an incredible feat but all things come to an end.
For what it's worth with the Hawks clear on top of the ladder and rhe business end of the season approaching my prediction not lookin good.

 

[HolyWars]

You can't just dismiss the GWS game and say, "Oh, but if we don't count it, the stats look better"

The same thing can be said when you referred to Hawthorn winning the close ones as "primarily luck". You can't say that winning all the close ones comes down to mainly luck, it comes down to mainly having the skill, experience and mental strength over the opposition in tight situations. These things trump luck when it continually happens.

All the games count. If you start excluding certain stats, all you are doing is manipulating the numbers to make them look better for your own teams benefit.

Agreed. However the most important stat of all is the win/loss record. A high percentage with an average win/loss ratio indicates the ability to beat up only on the average/ bottom clubs. A strong win/loss ratio with a decent percentage indicates that a club has the ability to win in high pressure scenarios against all/most clubs. I'd take the latter and day.

 

[Tulip]

It's much easier to enjoy when you remember that their fans have nothing significant to do with the team's success.

 

[Hawkk]

I might have read too much much into it but. I've bèen tipping the Hawks to fall off a cliff all season and not make the 4, infuenced no doubt by the fact it's the only time I watched them play.
Not lack of respect, threepeat was an incredible feat but all things come to an end.
For what it's worth with the Hawks clear on top of the ladder and rhe business end of the season approaching my prediction not lookin good.

Probably fair enough too. It was a shocking performance. That said the Giants have been nigh on invincible at home (until last week that is). I actually thought their performance against the Swans at Spotless was probably their most impressive of the season

Until recently the top 8 have had a real issue with defeating sides away from home. Of the 29 top 8 games thus far this season 23 have been played on venues with home ground advantage (the other 6 are neutral fixtures amongst Vic clubs at Ethiad / MCG). Of those 23, 17 have been won by the team with home ground advantage. Split by club...

Hawthorn 5/8 (2/1 with home ground advantage, 2/1 at neutral venues, 1/1 away)
Sydney 5/9 (3/2 at home, 2/2 away)
Adelaide 4/8 (3/1 at home, 1/3 away)
W Bulldogs 3/7 (2/0 with home ground advantage, 0/3 at neutral venues, 1/1 away)
West Coast 1/6 (1/1 at home, 0/5 away)
Geelong 6/8 (2/1 with home ground advantage, 3/0 at neutral venues, 1/1 away)
GWS 4/7 (4/0 at home, 0/3 away)
Nth Melbourne 2/7 (1/0 with home ground advantage, 1/2 at neutral venues, 0/3 away)

Home ground advantage could be so important come finals. In such a close season it could be the determining factor in a tight finals race

 

[dave123]

It's about 3 months from grand final day ....a lot can happen

 

[Gavin Excell]

Hawthorn's for-and-against and percentage against the other 7 finalists this year is:

696-749 - 92.9%

Interesting stat but perhaps its skewed a tad by the GWS result

 

[Canada]

Hawks are freaks.
People pump up other teams Mids like Geel or Syd, but simply Hawks are clearly best.
Mitchell, Hodge, Smith, Lewis, Burgoyne ridiculously underrated.
When games and flags need to be won, guys like Lewis and Burgoyne perform better than big names like Parker or Kennedy or Selwood or Pendelebury or Cotchin and Martin.
But nobody puts guys like these in top 10 mids in the comp. I do.
Defence sound, forward line with no Roughy sound. Mids...twice as good as anyone else. That's why they are clear on top and likely to win 4thorn.

 

[treefingers]

It's much easier to enjoy when you remember that their fans have nothing significant to do with the team's success.

Way to generalise - Hawthorn fans are no different to supporters of other teams, all bigfooty crap aside. I bet everyone thought Melbourne supporters were insufferable in the 1950s.

 

[Bokonon]

Probably fair enough too. It was a shocking performance. That said the Giants have been nigh on invincible at home (until last week that is). I actually thought their performance against the Swans at Spotless was probably their most impressive of the season

Until recently the top 8 have had a real issue with defeating sides away from home. Of the 29 top 8 games thus far this season 23 have been played on venues with home ground advantage (the other 6 are neutral fixtures amongst Vic clubs at Ethiad / MCG). Of those 23, 17 have been won by the team with home ground advantage. Split by club...

Hawthorn 5/8 (2/1 with home ground advantage, 2/1 at neutral venues, 1/1 away)
Sydney 5/9 (3/2 at home, 2/2 away)
Adelaide 4/8 (3/1 at home, 1/3 away)
W Bulldogs 3/7 (2/0 with home ground advantage, 0/3 at neutral venues, 1/1 away)
West Coast 1/6 (1/1 at home, 0/5 away)
Geelong 6/8 (2/1 with home ground advantage, 3/0 at neutral venues, 1/1 away)
GWS 4/7 (4/0 at home, 0/3 away)
Nth Melbourne 2/7 (1/0 with home ground advantage, 1/2 at neutral venues, 0/3 away)

Home ground advantage could be so important come finals. In such a close season it could be the determining factor in a tight finals race

Agreed home ground matters, and I hope we get finals at spotless where the boys would be more comfortable.You expect the Hawks ecperience to give them best chance away.
Reminded of Clarkson's quote in 2007 after the loss to North though "they gave us a lesson in how to play finals footy", and he trained Leon, expect a similar quote this year from him. Your guys had the advantage of a long and successful club history to draw on as well.
I think we will be on a learning curve this year and would be delighted if it happened as quickly, probably not though.
For that reason hope we match up at some point, but expect it will be the Crows you face in the big one.

I'm still pissing of Swans mates insisting that game was a changing of the guard, and we wont be beaten by them for a long time now.

 

[JackOutback]

Hawks are definitely a little more ripe for the picking than previous years, but every team would like to be where they are right now.

 

[Hawkk]

The same thing can be said when you referred to Hawthorn winning the close ones as "primarily luck". You can't say that winning all the close ones comes down to mainly luck, it comes down to mainly having the skill, experience and mental strength over the opposition in tight situations. These things trump luck when it continually happens.



Agreed. However the most important stat of all is the win/loss record. A high percentage with an average win/loss ratio indicates the ability to beat up only on the average/ bottom clubs. A strong win/loss ratio with a decent percentage indicates that a club has the ability to win in high pressure scenarios against all/most clubs. I'd take the latter and day.

Further to what I said last night if you look at Melbourne 1954-1958 and Hawthorn 2012-2016 there are something interesting parallels.

1954 - Melbourne went 11/7 (121.7%) in the regular season before succumbing to Footscray 101-51 in the GF
2012 - Hawthorn went 17/5 (154.6%) in the regular season before succumbing to Sydney 91-81 in the GF

1955 - Melbourne went 15/3 (150.3%) in the regular season before defeating Collingwood 64-36 in a low scoring GF
2013 - Hawthorn went 19/3 (135.7%) in the regular season before defeating Fremantle 77-62 in an equivalent GF

1956 - Melbourne went 16/2 (146%) in the regular season before belting Collingwood 121-48 in the GF
2014 - Hawthorn went 17/5 (140.8%) in the regular season before belting Sydney 137-74 in the GF

1957 - Melbourne went 12/1/5 (138.8%) in the regular season before belting Essendon 116-55 in the GF
2015 - Hawthorn went 16/6 (158.4%) in the regular season before belting West Coast 107-61 in the GF

Both are the last two teams to belt different GF opponents in successive Grand Finals. They also lost to the same two teams in the SF and defeated them in the GF to claim their hat tricks

In terms of quarters won (which I agree with Dan26 is usually a pretty good indicator of dominance...)

1954 Demons won 52 quarters, drew 2 and lost 32, the 2012 Hawks won 69 quarters, drew 1 and lost 30
1955 Demons won 56 quarters and lost 24, the 2013 Hawks won 64 quarters, lost 34 and squared 2...
1956 Demons won 46 quarters, drew 4 quarters and lost 29, the 2014 Hawks won 69 quarters, drew 2 and lost 29
1957 Demons won 60 quarters, drew 2 and lost 22 quarters, the 2015 Hawks blitzed the comp with 78 quarters won and only 22 lost
1958 Demons (up to round 12) won 29 quarters, lost 19 and drew 1, the 2016 Hawks (after 16 games) sit with 36 quarters won and 28 lost...

That's not to say Hawthorn will go on and blitzed the next 2 years (ala 1959-60) but greatness is always awarded retrospectively...

 

[Beauiehawk]

It's much easier to enjoy when you remember that their fans have nothing significant to do with the team's success.

How do you think our club, your club actually every club pay for their players, staff etc. supporters have a whole lot to do with how a club is directed. Ponder that fo