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

[HairyO]

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.

Sure. But given we were already a strong team we only needed 1 or 2 players a year. The poor teams needed a lot of new players to rebuild but GWS and GCS took 3 years worth of them away.

So each year we traded in a ready-made player, and drafted a few guys who may do okay in a few years, other teams couldnt trade in all the players they needed so had to wait for GWS and GCS to finish vacuuming up all the talented young kids.

The logical fallacy is assuming that the number of teams in a comp is a measure of anything in and of itself.

Because of GWS and GCS the strong teams stayed strong and the weak teams stayed weak. If not for the Draw tampering done by the AFL we wouldnt see any changes in ladder positions.

 

[seysearles]

I haven't read a single post in this thread, so apologies if I repeat earlier comments.

One can only respect Hawthorn's achievements of 3 flags in a row, however, they've been KOTD by a perfect storm of favourable scenarios.

In all 3 they've had a tremendous home ground advantage. This advantage wouldn't exist against other Victorian teams, even Etihad teams, but it does exist against interstate teams, especially as they often play just one or two games a year at the 'G. Fancy playing interstate teams at your home ground in a GF three years in a row.

The expansion teams. Hawthorn peaked at the perfect time, as other established clubs had to trawl through severely compromised drafts 3 years running. And yes, Hawthorn were virtually locked out of the draft too, but, as stated, their list had peaked at the perfect time.

Free agency. What a time for free agency and the Hawthorn football club. Already in the upper echelons of the ladder, as a destination club Hawthorn have been able to top up at just the right time. They're a superbly run club, so I'm far from being critical, but it's another avenue for a top team to remain a top team. FA has been perfect for Hawthorn.

Injuries. I can't recall my lowly side ever having their best 22 out on the ground in any round ever. It just never happens. Hawthorn had their best 22 on GF day versus the Eagles. Great player management, etc., but also incredible 'luck'.

Great team Hawthorn, but they've been KOTD more than any side I can remember.

I didn't realise the we collectively had a dick. How big is it? Are we circumcised?

 

[Vindicater]

*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?

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Re the dilution of talent argument. Surely hawthorn get additional credits for losing Franklin, arguably second best player in the comp at the time, and still winning another two?

You take brown or lynch out of Brisbane, would they have beaten Collingwood in either final?

 

[Gibbke]

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.

After your first sentence, which is true, the rest is so baffingly one-eyed and stupid I'm embarrassed we barrack for the same team. It was stupid when Eddie said it, and it doesn't get any better upon repeat...

Rags to riches...no team in living memory who is still with us got down to the level of "rags" that was the Bears nadir. They got some zone selections, at a time when noone looked twice at Qld anyway, and drafted youngsters who would be developed into champions with a lot of hard work and direction. The "hard work and direction bit"...it's ok when it's done by us, but a rort when drawn from a team's own hostile zone, with limited resources...? It is the QAFL we're talking about here...! Other teams also had zone selections from actual footy states, and only a short time after zones were the recruitment tool of all VFL sides - elsewhere on this site, you can read how Hawthorn was propelled into winningness permanently by lucking out with rezoning. Salary cap? The Lions took a roster wide pay cut to stay together, with many ignoring huge offers to move. You surely must identify with that - Schoenmakers, anyone...? Father-son...Cats fans might be averting their eyes at this moment, but since we started Alistair Clarkson's Excellent Adventure, we've had a few ourselves, including Tuck and Kennedy, never mind Langford who probably would have been if he wasn't already a rookie. Brown's success is irrelevant - we could have kept Kennedy. Merger? Well, we have no precedent for that, but 1 success from 8 isn't exactly a dynasty shaper, and besides, we got more out of John Barker than they did...

During my time living in Brisbane before, during and after the Lions era, where I bought seasons tickets for the entire journey and spent nearly every match barracking for their opposition (except the Big 3, of course), it was laughable to read Victorian footy press, especially once Eddie sunk his claws in, bemoaning the rise of a juggernaut...other sides who were more shithouse at what they do than Brisbane were grizzling because they were too good...is there any part of this that makes you, as a Hawk supporter (the only team in history to bottom out and then win a flag directly on the back of extra draft concessions), think "this sounds familiar..."...?

 

[JordyLuke]

Who gives a shit? Different eras, different challenges, different strengths, different game plans...

 

[dean31]

After your first sentence, which is true, the rest is so baffingly one-eyed and stupid I'm embarrassed we barrack for the same team. It was stupid when Eddie said it, and it doesn't get any better upon repeat...

Rags to riches...no team in living memory who is still with us got down to the level of "rags" that was the Bears nadir. They got some zone selections, at a time when noone looked twice at Qld anyway, and drafted youngsters who would be developed into champions with a lot of hard work and direction. The "hard work and direction bit"...it's ok when it's done by us, but a rort when drawn from a team's own hostile zone, with limited resources...? It is the QAFL we're talking about here...! Other teams also had zone selections from actual footy states, and only a short time after zones were the recruitment tool of all VFL sides - elsewhere on this site, you can read how Hawthorn was propelled into winningness permanently by lucking out with rezoning. Salary cap? The Lions took a roster wide pay cut to stay together, with many ignoring huge offers to move. You surely must identify with that - Schoenmakers, anyone...? Father-son...Cats fans might be averting their eyes at this moment, but since we started Alistair Clarkson's Excellent Adventure, we've had a few ourselves, including Tuck and Kennedy, never mind Langford who probably would have been if he wasn't already a rookie. Brown's success is irrelevant - we could have kept Kennedy. Merger? Well, we have no precedent for that, but 1 success from 8 isn't exactly a dynasty shaper, and besides, we got more out of John Barker than they did...

During my time living in Brisbane before, during and after the Lions era, where I bought seasons tickets for the entire journey and spent nearly every match barracking for their opposition (except the Big 3, of course), it was laughable to read Victorian footy press, especially once Eddie sunk his claws in, bemoaning the rise of a juggernaut...other sides who were more shithouse at what they do than Brisbane were grizzling because they were too good...is there any part of this that makes you, as a Hawk supporter (the only team in history to bottom out and then win a flag directly on the back of extra draft concessions), think "this sounds familiar..."...?

Everyones entitled to their opinion, the Lions had more than just zones in QLD.
My opinion is that the Hawks didn't get handouts, didn't benefit from a merger and won a 3peat in an era of greater equalisation, nothing to do with been 1 eyed. Just when people try to compare the Lions achievements against the Hawks I'm not buying it, same goes with the VFL era premierships and they get less relevant the further you go back in the past.
Bears merged after finishing 3rd. If Hawks almost merging and the AFL standing by with no intention to rescue them is not rags then I don't know what you class as rags. Not Fitzroy, that was the death of a team.
I enjoyed the Lions Premierships, was backing them in every GF and beating the Pies twice was gold.
Obviously the class of players was greater than any extra salary cap would have provided for if not for the players taking unders. Same goes for the recent Geelong premiership years and the Hawks. Every player on the Hawks list could likely get paid more elsewhere.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

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

When forum discussion becomes white noise...

When flogs circle jerk together. Are you afraid you will never be GOAT ? Hawks have the opportunity to become that next year otherwise not there yet. Brisbane can't add to their in a row tally. For now Brisbane have it 3 GF's in a row away from home on a ground they have limited exposure to now that's something pretty special

 

[Montana2Rice]

Would Hawthorn have their three-peat if their grand finals weren't played at their home ground????


There already is a thread about the grand final being at a neutral venue, or who is better Brisbane, geelong, hawthorn etc, however what about this....

Hawthorns three grand final wins have come against interstate teams who have had to play on a pitch which has different dimensions to their own, a stadium where they had only played minimal times during the year, and not to mention the significant crowd advantage and influence the hawks have.

Lets look at 2013 grand final. Hawks win by 15 points. Played against a team that had barely played a game at the MCG all year, and traveled from Perth, where they played over 50% of their games on a pitch with much smaller dimensions.

2014 Grand final. Hawks win by 63 points. Annihilation, and you'd have to be stupid to say that the MCG is a 10 goal advantage for the hawks, but had the game been played in Sydney with a majority of supporters being Sydney supporters would it had been Sydney who crumbled under pressure early on, and then were forced to chase the game, or would it potentially been the Hawks who crumbled under the pressure of playing on a foreign ground, with no home crowd support??

2015 Grand Final. Hawks win by 46 points. No excuses for the Eagles here but an embarrassment really. Many fumbles, easy mistakes, made Hawthorn look like they couldn't do no wrong. However, just 3 weeks back at the Eagles home ground we saw the complete opposite occur?? Is it just a coincidence the Hawks had a bad game 3 three weeks ago, and three weeks later the Eagles just happen to have a bad game?? Or could it be similar reasons to 2014. Early on pressure of a grand final, playing on a ground which they are not used to, infront of an intimidating home crowd. Meanwhile the hawks had the advantage of playing on their home ground, infront of their home crowd, and were able to settle quicker, and hence get out to a marginal advantage and force their opponents to try and chase for the rest of the game??

Firsly before i get criticized like i said the game could have been played at Pattersons and the way the eagles played, and the way the hawks played their wouldnt have been much difference, but for all those saying Hawthorn is the greatest team of all, bar their 2013 season, they haven't been the best team throughout the home and away seasons of 2014, and 2015 yet were fortunate enough to play the grand final on their home ground, in front of their home crowd.

Had all three of these three finals been played in Perth, and Sydney would the hawks still be 3-0?

Reading the op again, it's interesting that he doesn't mention expansion teams, salary cap or anything else, he just concentrates on home ground, so I concede that's a fair question. And, he concedes that the result of 2015 would not change even if played at Subiaco.

HOWEVER, I have 3 points.

1. In 2013, Hawks actually won minor premiership, so all those who put forward higher finishing teams should play on home ground in gf, 2013 doesn't change.

2. Given home crowd influence is seen as a major factor in home ground advantage, is there ANY game where there is LESS home ground advantage than the gf? Go to Adelaide, Perth, kardinia park, etc for ANY game, and the away team is lucky to have 5000 fans. Sure there is less capacity, but I recall when freo played at kardinia in 2013 (and won) that the figures quoted were 2000 dockers supporters in a crowd of just over 30,000. I'm happy to concede 3000 dockers fans, which would be 10%.

In the gf, with corporates, mcc members, other members, and the fact each competing club gets the same allocation, surely the crowd is neutralized. A case could even be made that in 2014 and 2015, the Hawks had less support from neutrals, and hence had less support than their opposition.

Every thread that talks about Subiaco in here mentions how the umpires favour the west Aussie teams because the crowd over there is so one eyed and actually affect the umpires. I'm not saying that's true or false but surely there can be no such influence in a gf. Or, conversely, given a gf in Perth would require corporates, afl members, and an equal allocation to each competing team, the home ground advantage for Perth teams would be lessened.

3. IF standings at end of home and away season are an indicator, Brisbane were NEVER the best team in their years, given they never won minor premiership. BUT, our system is not based on who wins minor premiership. Indeed look at the results and you will see the minor premier has a less than 50% success rate from 1990 onwards (9 minor premiers have won out of 26 years, slightly better than 33% success. The years they won were 93, 94, 95, 2000, 04, 06, 07, 10, 13)

I personally think it's crazy to try and argue for/against teams from different eras, and there is no doubt the lions won in a totally different era to the Hawks. But if you are going to argue, please have fun just perhaps, try using facts.

 

[Vindicater]

Everyones entitled to their opinion, the Lions had more than just zones in QLD.
My opinion is that the Hawks didn't get handouts, didn't benefit from a merger and won a 3peat in an era of greater equalisation, nothing to do with been 1 eyed. Just when people try to compare the Lions achievements against the Hawks I'm not buying it, same goes with the VFL era premierships and they get less relevant the further you go back in the past.
Bears merged after finishing 3rd. If Hawks almost merging and the AFL standing by with no intention to rescue them is not rags then I don't know what you class as rags. Not Fitzroy, that was the death of a team.
I enjoyed the Lions Premierships, was backing them in every GF and beating the Pies twice was gold.
Obviously the class of players was greater than any extra salary cap would have provided for if not for the players taking unders. Same goes for the recent Geelong premiership years and the Hawks. Every player on the Hawks list could likely get paid more elsewhere.

Luke Hodge #1 Priority pick 2001
Jarryd Roughead #2 Priority pick 2004
Xaiver Ellis #3 Priority pick pick 2005 (Stuffed that one up but imagine if they got it right, Pendlebury!!!)

 

[hk89]

Luke Hodge #1 Priority pick 2001

We traded Croad to Freo for that #1 pick. Yes, it was a handout from Freo, but blame Freo for that.

Jarryd Roughead #2 Priority pick 2004

Yup a handy pick.

Xaiver Ellis #3 Priority pick pick 2005 (Stuffed that one up but imagine if they got it right, Pendlebury!!!)

So 1 priority pick that worked out in the last 15 years. How many Brownlow medalists were Brisbane able to keep on their list with their concessions? How many priority picks have Melbourne and Carlton received and how many flags have they won? It is not about the picks.

 

[dean31]

Luke Hodge #1 Priority pick 2001
Jarryd Roughead #2 Priority pick 2004
Xaiver Ellis #3 Priority pick pick 2005 (Stuffed that one up but imagine if they got it right, Pendlebury!!!)

2001 Luke Hodge was not a priority pick, the Hawks traded Luke McPharlin and Trent Croad to Fremantle and got back pick 1 Hodge, pick 20 Elstone and last but certainly not least....
Pick 36 Sam Mitchell.
Essendon got to use drugs for years so they had their advantages also.
Ellis has played no part in the 3peat. Hawks later got Croad back on the cheap a few seasons later.
Every team has hits and misses in the draft it's a bit of a gamble, although the Hawks have drafted very well with late picks recently,
Duryea pick 69, Breust rookie draft not picked up in national draft. Poppy was drafted fairly late from memory.
Hawks have also lost a lot of players to free agency so it more than balances out. Priority picks of which just 1 has played a part in the 3peat were there for every team that finished with less than 5 wins from memory, not just a set of concessions for 1 club only.
Maybe to aid in equalisation the AFL should appoint James Hird as the Hawks head coach.

 

[Mitchell19]

Luke Hodge #1 Priority pick 2001
Jarryd Roughead #2 Priority pick 2004
Xaiver Ellis #3 Priority pick pick 2005 (Stuffed that one up but imagine if they got it right, Pendlebury!!!)

1. Luke Hodge was not a priority pick. We had to trade two gun talls for that no.1 pick. (McPharlin/Croad)
2. The benefit of the priority pick isn't the 1st player you choose (you'd obviously pick them anyway with your standard 1st pick) its the next player you get to pick straight away.

Therefore our priority pick benefits have been:
- Buddy. (Pretty handy!!! But only had him for 1 of the threepeat years and actually lost him for NOTHING to our opponent in the second of our threepeat years)
- Dowler. (Hardly a benefit to us unfortunately)

I don't think the priority picks played any part in our list strength. It's all been shrewd trading and the odd good draft pick (though as with all teams we had our share of draft mistakes also)

 

[Gibbke]

Everyones entitled to their opinion, the Lions had more than just zones in QLD.
My opinion is that the Hawks didn't get handouts, didn't benefit from a merger and won a 3peat in an era of greater equalisation, nothing to do with been 1 eyed. Just when people try to compare the Lions achievements against the Hawks I'm not buying it, same goes with the VFL era premierships and they get less relevant the further you go back in the past.
Bears merged after finishing 3rd. If Hawks almost merging and the AFL standing by with no intention to rescue them is not rags then I don't know what you class as rags. Not Fitzroy, that was the death of a team.
I enjoyed the Lions Premierships, was backing them in every GF and beating the Pies twice was gold.
Obviously the class of players was greater than any extra salary cap would have provided for if not for the players taking unders. Same goes for the recent Geelong premiership years and the Hawks. Every player on the Hawks list could likely get paid more elsewhere.

The merger added almost nothing to the Bears list because they'd already done an outstanding job rescuing themselves from the joke of a team they were about five years before that. If it's good enough for us to chart a journey from the Melbourne merger to premiership success over twelve years with two dips in between, then you can't dismiss the single line journey the Bears/Lions took from the rabble who couldn't afford to compete in the 1990 night series and who were butchered by their own administration and ownership after an initial period as Skase's boytoy, moving to the Gabba and adopting sensible policy on back of recruiting the best in their jobs, and then committing with new people. That's why the Bears were third in 1996. A near identical side suffered a single aberation in 1998, but the rest is history. There's nothing to buy - it's all there in black and white, or more accurately colour match replay. The team cannot be criticised for concessions, because the reasons for them were either blatantly obvious (Qld is a far tougher footy market than Victoria and Tasmania) or documented fact (the go home factor). All they ever got was a levelling of the playing field, not gift wrapped premierships from the AFL. This wouldn't be a discussion if the Lions lost all four GF's, and probably wouldn't have even been changed...

Our achievement is awesome, and we deserve the commendation because we most certainly did do it off our own bat. But so did they...

 

[Nuggets73]

Many posters would have you believe that our home ground is in Tassie and mcg is a neutral venue

In all seriousness, your argument is void - the grand final has always been played at the mcg (except for 1991 which I'm sure you know about)..

Interstate sides have not had an issue winning premierships at the MCG before.. You can't hold it against the Hawks for being too good

This ... 10 goals smashing don't equate to a "home ground advantage"
... clubs look for ANY excuse why they lost .. here's yet another

 

[DieSwans]

There's no denying there is at least a small advantage...of course there is.

Nothing can be done about it though tbh....the team who's not as used to the ground just has to play that bit better.

And which idiot said home ground advantage isn't a thing?
Stats speak very differently tbh

Either way...Eagles shit the bed this year

 

[dean31]

The merger added almost nothing to the Bears list because they'd already done an outstanding job rescuing themselves from the joke of a team they were about five years before that. If it's good enough for us to chart a journey from the Melbourne merger to premiership success over twelve years with two dips in between, then you can't dismiss the single line journey the Bears/Lions took from the rabble who couldn't afford to compete in the 1990 night series and who were butchered by their own administration and ownership after an initial period as Skase's boytoy, moving to the Gabba and adopting sensible policy on back of recruiting the best in their jobs, and then committing with new people. That's why the Bears were third in 1996. A near identical side suffered a single aberation in 1998, but the rest is history. There's nothing to buy - it's all there in black and white, or more accurately colour match replay. The team cannot be criticised for concessions, because the reasons for them were either blatantly obvious (Qld is a far tougher footy market than Victoria and Tasmania) or documented fact (the go home factor). All they ever got was a levelling of the playing field, not gift wrapped premierships from the AFL. This wouldn't be a discussion if the Lions lost all four GF's, and probably wouldn't have even been changed...

Our achievement is awesome, and we deserve the commendation because we most certainly did do it off our own bat. But so did they...

I don't agree that the merger added next to nothing to their list. They got Chris Johnson (2 time all Australian) They on traded unwanted Fitzroy players the trades got them Mal Michael (don't know if AA) and Pike. Very handy players for the Lions. They also had an extended playing roster to accomodate extra players.

 

[Hawkk]

I don't agree that the merger added next to nothing to their list. They got Chris Johnson (2 time all Australian) They on traded unwanted Fitzroy players the trades got them Mal Michael (don't know if AA) and Pike. Very handy players for the Lions. They also had an extended playing roster to accomodate extra players.

...and J Brown through F/S (who at the time was dubbed a top 3 pick before electing to go F/S to the Lions)

That being said Brown's influence over 2001/02 premierships wss negligable...he really came into his own as a player in 2004-08

The Lions would have also grabbed Marc Murphy through the Fitzroy legacy F/S if he didn't opt for the draft...

 

[gavaniacono]

Yeah right. Hawks snuck over the line in the last 3 GFs and were very fortunate. Their superiority is based on where they play, not their actual team or coach.

 

[WWSD]

Yeah right. Hawks snuck over the line in the last 3 GFs and were very fortunate. Their superiority is based on where they play, not their actual team or coach.

So winning the last three Grand Finals by 15, 63 and 46 points is sneaking over the line?

Alastair Clarkson is the best coach in the competition who's got a 63% winning record, 3 different game-plans for 4 Premierships, 5 Grand Finals and a Preliminary Final loss by three points in 2011. We've won the last eight finals we've played at the MCG since 2013. The results speak for themselves. Not our fault we play that ground better then any other team.

 

[hk89]

So winning the last three Grand Finals by 15, 63 and 46 points is sneaking over the line?

That's the joke sir.

 

[Leeda]

Victory and never anything below.. you can use this anyway you like.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

When flogs circle jerk together. Are you afraid you will never be GOAT ? Hawks have the opportunity to become that next year otherwise not there yet. Brisbane can't add to their in a row tally. For now Brisbane have it 3 GF's in a row away from home on a ground they have limited exposure to now that's something pretty special

If not this team, then the one in the 80's that played off in 7 consecutive Grand Finals is already the GOAT.

 

[Leeda]

I was on a flight and I heard the word, Kennedy, and he was the pilot, I was kind of afraid and yet
i knew that it was okay...

I am kind of afraid of flying but these things always mean something.

The world just spins in strange ways but little things just keep you straight.

You know what I mean...

 

[dean31]

So winning the last three Grand Finals by 15, 63 and 46 points is sneaking over the line?

Alastair Clarkson is the best coach in the competition who's got a 63% winning record, 3 different game-plans for 4 Premierships, 5 Grand Finals and a Preliminary Final loss by three points in 2011. We've won the last eight finals we've played at the MCG since 2013. The results speak for themselves. Not our fault we play that ground better then any other team.

Pretty sure he was been sarcastic.