Analysis The Rebuilds Of Hawthorn and Geelong and their Future Prospects

[PhatBoy]

There’s a reason clubs try to win the flag each year.

Just like there’s a reason clubs who can win back to back are viewed as better than ones who can’t.

Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

Yes, because people have this idea that it’s a bigger achievement when it is the same achievement as someone else who wins the same amount of things in a given period.
Does the team who wins 2 in a row achieve something more than the team who wins, then doesn’t?
Yes.
Does the team who wins 2 in a row then doesn’t, achieve something more than the team who wins, loses, then wins?

No. And no matter how many times people claim that it does, it won’t make the trophy any bigger, more impressive, or more meaningful.

And I say that as someone whose AFL team has not gone back to back, and whose rugby league team was the first to do it in two decades. It means squat.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yes, because people have this idea that it’s a bigger achievement when it is the same achievement as someone else who wins the same amount of things in a given period.
Does the team who wins 2 in a row achieve something more than the team who wins, then doesn’t?
Yes.
Does the team who wins 2 in a row then doesn’t, achieve something more than the team who wins, loses, then wins?

No. And no matter how many times people claim that it does, it won’t make the trophy any bigger, more impressive, or more meaningful.

And I say that as someone whose AFL team has not gone back to back, and whose rugby league team was the first to do it in two decades. It means squat.

Ha!

Everyone knows that back to back to back is a bigger achievement than not being able to back it up even once.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ha!

Everyone knows that back to back to back is a bigger achievement than not being able to back it up even once.

No it isn’t.
If it’s being compared to a team’s two consecutive seasons who didn’t win 2 flags then of course it is.

If it is being compared to a team who won the same amount of trophies in general, it means Jack s**t, and continuing to say it ‘just because’ won’t change that.

If it meant anything the 90s Crows would be higher achievers than the early 90s eagles. They aren’t.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

He came 10th in the coaches award. Only Cameron from Geelong was higher, in a premiership year.

You think you know better than the AFL coaches and all australian panel?

Seeds has never rated Blicavs, he is definitely an outlier among Geelong fans in that regard.
Good chance at BnF no.3 this year btw.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Name a club who's won more premierships this century than Geelong.

Name a club that’s played off in more continuous GF’s than Hawthorn this century and won more than 3 of them in a row?

What a lame as heck dick measuring contest.
Both clubs are objectively the equal most successful clubs this century. End of debate.

Here we are talking rebuilds, while a plethora of rebuild threads exist on this site over the last few years for clubs that can't even salute once, and are no longer on their first rebuild.

Arguing about s**t that doesn't matter.

 

[z547043]

Name a club that’s played off in more continuous GF’s than Hawthorn this century and won more than 3 of them in a row?

Is there an IQ test for moderators on this site?

So just to clarify, before my head explodes. If at the end of the century, Sydney has won 15 premierships, but never 3 in a row or played in 4 GFs in a row and Hawthorn still have 4 premierships, along with 66 wooden spoons, then Hawthorn is still the more successful of the team?

Or would this only hold if Hawthorn retained the same stat line as above and Sydney also won 4 Premierships, but lets say amassed 35 GF appearances and 95 top 8 finishes in the same bracket. Hawthorn still win right, because they did it consecutive and made 4 GFs in a row?

What a convenient outcome for you, completely devoid of any logic or real consideration to the definition of success.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Is there an IQ test for moderators on this site?

So just to clarify, before my head explodes. If at the end of the century, Sydney has won 15 premierships, but never 3 in a row or played in 4 GFs in a row and Hawthorn still have 4 premierships, along with 66 wooden spoons, then Hawthorn is still the more successful of the team?

The humour of writing that first line and following it up with that next paragraph with a completely unbalanced comparison.
You realize that both Hawthorn and Geelong have won the same amount of flags this century, yeah?

If 2 teams wins 6 flags in 20 years, and for 1 team each flag is separated by at least a year and missing the GF as a follow up whereas with the other team they win 2x threepeats that side will undoubtedly be viewed as a better club for having had two dominant periods, and being able to stay at the top for three years straight.

It’s literally why Hawthorn is renowned as the team of the 80’s because they backed it up year after year.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Arguing about s**t that doesn't matter.

Welcome to Bigfooty.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Thread should be closed, it doesn't even make sense and has inevitably turned into a dick measuring contest.

If we're 'rebuiding' then we're a mile in front....but we're not, at least not the traditional way, anyway.

Geelong's trajectory should be compared to Collingwood, Melbourne, Brisbane, Richmond etc.

Hawthorn's trajectory should be compared to Adelaide, North, West Coast etc.

That's not a slight on either club, it's grouping clubs who are on a similar path. It's not fair on either club and it's not a fair system to assess success.

Not to mention that the average supporter knows so little about each team's youth that it's a pointless exercise anyway.

Elmer_Judd for example, you suggest the Cats need to focus more on youth. Geelong have 7 top 30 draft picks on their list since 2019.

• SDK
• Bruhn
• Holmes
• Knevitt
• Conway
• Clark
• O Henry

That list doesn't include the likes of Zuthrie, Stengle, Close, Miers, J Henry, Ratugolea and Bowes who all still under 25...nor does it include Mullin, Dempsey, Neale and Willis, who our club rate incredibly high

It also doesn't include Lachie Ash, TDK, or Doedee...who we're odds on to sign this off-season.

To suggest the Cats need to hit the draft harder than that in an era where we've been top 4 every year, and reached two Grand Finals is just ridiculous and uneducated.

Will that list above by itself win us a premiership? Probably not, but it's still a damn good list...particularly considering we've been striving to contend for the last 16 years.

Only a small example, and I'm sure the Hawks supporters in here have plenty as well...but it's a pointless thread when posters simply don't know enough about their contemporaries to make an argument.

 

[threesixpio]

Not only did we go back to back to back

But we were one of the teams that stopped Geelong from going back to back to back

It’s poetry

You know it

 

[threesixpio]

Yes, because people have this idea that it’s a bigger achievement when it is the same achievement as someone else who wins the same amount of things in a given period.
Does the team who wins 2 in a row achieve something more than the team who wins, then doesn’t?
Yes.
Does the team who wins 2 in a row then doesn’t, achieve something more than the team who wins, loses, then wins?

No. And no matter how many times people claim that it does, it won’t make the trophy any bigger, more impressive, or more meaningful.

And I say that as someone whose AFL team has not gone back to back, and whose rugby league team was the first to do it in two decades. It means squat.

There’s an idea

Then there is fact. You have to win a whole lot of games in a row to win a flag. So logically winning a whole lot of flags in a row is betterer - even the most betterest ever

2013-15 was a flaggasm. Admit it

 

[PhatBoy]

There’s an idea

Then there is fact. You have to win a whole lot of games in a row to win a flag. So logically winning a whole lot of flags in a row is betterer - even the most betterest ever

2013-15 was a flaggasm. Admit it

We didn’t get a bigger cup at the end of the season last year for winning 16 games on the bounce.

I’m sure 13-15 was fantastic for you. It doesn’t earn you more titles than us or Richmond over 5 and 4 seasons.

 

[99cents]

It’s called a threepeat, complete with 3 consecutive premiership cups.

Home ground flags are cheaper than VIC v VIC.
The biggest flags of all are won by Non- VIC v VIC.

Hawthorn 3 home ground flags (including 1 v a team that had never played in a GF!)
1 v VIC
and lost to non VIC

4 flags is 4 flags but they are a little less impressive due to opponent and home ground advantage

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Home ground flags are cheaper than VIC v VIC.
The biggest flags of all are won by Non- VIC v VIC.

Hawthorn 3 home ground flags (including 1 v a team that had never played in a GF!)
1 v VIC
and lost to non VIC

4 flags is 4 flags but they are a little less impressive due to opponent and home ground advantage

As I walked into the Cricketers Arms on Punt Road with a post grand final buzz three years running and settled in the beer garden, watching the replay and highlights of the days success I looked at my fellow Hawthorn supporters and said, “You know what… I just feel like we need to win these grand finals in another state for them to mean as much as they should!”.

 

[z547043]

The humour of writing that first line and following it up with that next paragraph with a completely unbalanced comparison.
You realize that both Hawthorn and Geelong have won the same amount of flags this century, yeah?

If 2 teams wins 6 flags in 20 years, and for 1 team each flag is separated by at least a year and missing the GF as a follow up whereas with the other team they win 2x threepeats that side will undoubtedly be viewed as a better club for having had two dominant periods, and being able to stay at the top for three years straight.

It’s literally why Hawthorn is renowned as the team of the 80’s because they backed it up year after year.

Correct, team of the 80’s, not the century. It’s also why they aren’t considered the team of the 1900’s because they were a laughing stock and unsuccessful for most of it.

Sustained winning and being competitive is success in itself. And if the only measure of success in your clearly narrow definition is premierships, you don’t get anything extra for winning them in a shorter period. In fact, in most people’s eyes if you were a basket case for much of the period you are comparing or at the very least finished much lower comparatively, then other teams with equal number of premierships would be considered more successful in that period.

Like, I said conveniently you don’t subscribe to basic logic in this case.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Correct, team of the 80’s, not the century. It’s also why they aren’t considered the team of the 1900’s because they were a laughing stock and unsuccessful for most of it.

Sustained winning and being competitive is success in itself. And if the only measure of success in your clearly narrow definition is premierships, you don’t get anything extra for winning them in a shorter period. In fact, in most people’s eyes if you were a basket case for much of the period you are comparing or at the very least finished much lower comparatively, then other teams with equal number of premierships would be considered more successful in that period.

Like, I said conveniently you don’t subscribe to basic logic in this case.

Hawthorn didn’t even enter the comp until 1925, so it would have been some sort of feat to be the best side for that century.

It’s really quite basic logic that there’s a reason back to back sides are more revered than any side who wins the flag, but then falls in a heap the following year.
Sustained success >>> unsustained success.

 

[threesixpio]

Team is likely to be made up of the same people over 3 verses 5 years. Easier to say “champion team” basically

There are so many reasons why it’s better. Hilarious mental gymnastics by the Feline types

 

[threesixpio]

Home ground flags are cheaper than VIC v VIC.
The biggest flags of all are won by Non- VIC v VIC.

Hawthorn 3 home ground flags (including 1 v a team that had never played in a GF!)
1 v VIC
and lost to non VIC

4 flags is 4 flags but they are a little less impressive due to opponent and home ground advantage

I’ll tell you what’s unimpressive - getting the biggest leg up in AFL history and the closest you get to a flag is the worst royal thumping you will see in a GF

 

[threesixpio]

And don’t say you’re new to the competition - so were the Eagles and Crows and they capitalised on the perks as intended

 

[z547043]

Hawthorn didn’t even enter the comp until 1925, so it would have been some sort of feat to be the best side for that century.

It’s really quite basic logic that there’s a reason back to back sides are more revered than any side who wins the flag, but then falls in a heap the following year.
Sustained success >>> unsustained

It’s really quite basic logic that there’s a reason back to back sides are more revered than any side who wins the flag, but then falls in a heap the following year.
Sustained success >>> unsustained success.

Thanks for the history lesson. It wasn’t necessary.

Anyway, getting back to the central issue, which is your absurd use of logic.

Could you answer the following question for my friend? He wants to know who was the more successful club in the period of 1939-2001, Essendon or Melbourne? TIA.

 

[threesixpio]

Thanks for the history lesson. It wasn’t necessary.

Anyway, getting back to the central issue, which is your absurd use of logic.

Could you answer the following question for my friend? He wants to know who was the more successful club in the period of 1939-2001, Essendon or Melbourne? TIA.

You want another history lesson by the look of it

 

[STPer18]

Sounds like we've got a fair few irons in the fire to bring in some more young guns in the off-season, so the rebuild on the run might just keep chugging along for the most successful club this century.

 

[z547043]

You want another history lesson by the look it

No, I just want to know if that in a 60 odd year period.

9 flags, 5 losing GF appearances and 5 spoons is more successful than 9 flags, 11 losing GF appearances and 0 spoons.

Not to mention about 150 less wins in that time and 10 less finals appearances in that time.

So tell me who was more successful again?

 

[threesixpio]

No, I just want to know if that in a 60 odd year period.

9 flags, 5 losing GF appearances and 5 spoons is more successful than 9 flags, 11 losing GF appearances and 0 spoons.

Not to mention about 150 less wins in that time and 10 less finals appearances in that time.

So tell me who was more successful again?

I think you like to select which history to discuss. I get it though

 

[threesixpio]

Sounds like we've got a fair few irons in the fire to bring in some more young guns in the off-season, so the rebuild on the run might just keep chugging along for the most successful club this century.

Should start a “most successful club in this century” thread.