Here's a question for you Hawthorn greatest team of all backers.

[greennick]

While I think it is true that playing at the MCG against 3 interstate sides helps them, I think there was still just far too much of a gap. They would have at least comfortably beat us and Sydney, even if they were at Subiaco and the SCG. The Dockers would have been more interesting, but I would still think they would get up.

 

[MrPremiership]

Which team is better than the Hawks of 2013-15 and why?

 

[Vindicater]

Which team is better than the Hawks of 2013-15 and why?

Brisbane of 2001-2003.

Better midfield.
Strong aggressive forward line.
Solid if unspectacular defense (much like the Hawks).
Perhaps even more unsociable than the Hawks.

Would love to see a series of games from these two teams.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Brisbane of 2001-2003.

Better midfield.
Strong aggressive forward line.
Solid if unspectacular defense (much like the Hawks).
Perhaps even more unsociable than the Hawks.

Would love to see a series of games from these two teams.

would be interesting to watch. Tipping it would be fairly brutal at times.

 

[Masqualero]

Which team is better than the Hawks of 2013-15 and why?

Carlton 2015.

 

[roughguts]

Carlton 2015.

Why ?

 

[dean31]

Why ?

Because they are so strong for holding everyone else up on the ladder. They had 17 teams on their shoulders that impressive!

 

[MrPremiership]

Brisbane of 2001-2003.

Better midfield.
Strong aggressive forward line.
Solid if unspectacular defense (much like the Hawks).
Perhaps even more unsociable than the Hawks.

Would love to see a series of games from these two teams.

Had a higher salary cap
Only did it in a 16 team comp

Hawks still GOAT, lions 2nd

 

[smeltitdeltit]

OP's team/thread start date is hillarious

 

[Gibbke]

Had a higher salary cap
Only did it in a 16 team comp

Hawks still GOAT, lions 2nd

Off field matters are irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what they did onfield...

Otherwise our achievements in the 1980's, with spurious salary capping, under the table deals, 12 teams and a totally lawless recruiting system become null and void...!

 

[dean31]

Off field matters are irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what they did onfield...

Otherwise our achievements in the 1980's, with spurious salary capping, under the table deals, 12 teams and a totally lawless recruiting system become null and void...!

Didn't all teams have the same things going on though?

 

[MrPremiership]

Off field matters are irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what they did onfield...

Otherwise our achievements in the 1980's, with spurious salary capping, under the table deals, 12 teams and a totally lawless recruiting system become null and void...!

No, off-field parameters matter a hell of a lot.

Hawks success during 80s is below Hawks 2013-15 and Brisbane 2001-3 due to those reasons.

 

[PieLebo87]

Agree, however, these are the little things to look at when asking if their the best team of the generation. Brisbane played their three grand finals on a foreign ground, in which their opponents had the home ground advantage. i feel thats a lot more impressive than what hawthorn has done.

Isn't it ironic that you say this, and yet it was another interstate team that beat Brisbane at the MCG in 2004. Stop being sour. Best team all year generally wins the big dance.

 

[Gary Conan Ayres]

Would west coast or freo have made the grand final if it wasnt for their home ground advantage. NO.

 

[Samthegun]

Well, there's Frawley......and..........hmmmmm.

There's Buddy! He was one of our free agents!! LOL

 

[Vindicater]

Had a higher salary cap
Only did it in a 16 team comp

Hawks still GOAT, lions 2nd

*Had to win all three away from home.
*16 teams is harder to win than 18 teams due to talent being diluted into 2 more teams.

We can do this all day.

I see the Hawks and Lions as close equals as the best teams to ever play the game. I have the Lions slightly ahead and think would win over a series of games. however on any given day you could flip a coin.

 

[Roddy]

We can do this all day.

You've just summed up jealous, deluded Hawk hating trolls on Bigfooty in one sentence.

 

[mookieb]

*16 teams is harder to win than 18 teams due to talent being diluted into 2 more teams.

So the less teams in a competition the harder it is to win...

Imagine how hard it would be to win a premiership if there were only two teams?

 

[Banyo Bloods]

You've just summed up jealous, deluded Hawk hating trolls on Bigfooty in one sentence.

You've just summed up one eyed supporters in one sentence. Win the cup next year then there is no contest, at the moment Lions have it for having to win away for 3 years in a row.

 

[Roddy]

You've just summed up one eyed supporters in one sentence. Win the cup next year then there is no contest, at the moment Lions have it for having to win away for 3 years in a row.

Blah blah blah blah blah...................

When forum discussion becomes white noise...

 

[#gosaintas]

This is true. Winning 3 in a row vs interstate teams on your home ground is much easier than winning away from home. Brisbane win as the best team of the last 15 years

 

[dean31]

This is true. Winning 3 in a row vs interstate teams on your home ground is much easier than winning away from home. Brisbane win as the best team of the last 15 years

Not a chance the Hawks are a true rags to riches success story.
The AFL sought to purchase premierships for Brisbane and half their team was the product of draft concessions, merger benefits through players, trading players, J Brown F&S.
Voss and Akermanis were both recruited through draft concessions. Plus extra salary cap.
Success purchased (AFL Lions) can never be held in as high regard as the Hawks success earnt.

 

[#gosaintas]

Brisbane a much better team to watch too. Hawks are dull to watch.

 

[HairyO]

*16 teams is harder to win than 18 teams due to talent being diluted into 2 more teams.

So the less teams in a competition the harder it is to win...

Imagine how hard it would be to win a premiership if there were only two teams?

The comp has gone backwards since adding GCS and GWS. Those 2 teams have taken 3 years worth of new talent, plus got to cherry pick the out of contract players. They have an open cheque book for recruiting as well.

So it may not always be a true statement, but it certainly is true in this case. The comp is worse now with 18 teams than it was with 16.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

The comp has gone backwards since adding GCS and GWS. Those 2 teams have taken 3 years worth of new talent, plus got to cherry pick the out of contract players. They have an open cheque book for recruiting as well.

So it may not always be a true statement, but it certainly is true in this case. The comp is worse now with 18 teams than it was with 16.

The issue with the original logic (talent is diluted amongst two extra teams, making it easier to win rather than harder) is that talent is diluted for EVERYBODY, including Hawthorn. Hawthorn lost players too and had later picks than basically anybody ever yet still found the players to form/complete a triple premiership side (that's a far cry from having concessions no one else has and a merger to create a triple premiership list). In an even access system (as the AFL currently is), more teams means harder to win. Not only is talent diluted for ALL teams, the probability of winning is automatically reduced. It's a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise and why the poster mentioning winning in a two team system (rather than 18) being easier is obviously correct.