Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers

Which dynasty is the greatest?


  • Total voters
    652

Remove this Banner Ad

Chance not taken.

You're even using the same phrasing as StrongAndBald, who also definitely wasn't you, and are interacting with the same posters on identical topics with identical arguments.

You truly have no shame, do you?

Have you vented enough now? Want to start talking about footy? If not I’m going to the mods.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gee it's great for supporters to reflect on these successful eras but clearly not enough for some! Why can't we all just appreciate really good and different sides from different era?

My take is the early Lions knocked off one of the best sides I've seen in the Bombers and some will say they were off the boil after 2000 but they were still bloody good. I didn't rate the Pies who I thought were one of those sides who were the best coached but had limited personnel in those following two flags but got the absolute maximum out of themselves. Feel like Port were the better match up in 02 and 03 but never got it done. Unbelievable side that Lions one. No weakness on any line.

The Cats I reckon I witnessed the birth of that side. Any Richmond supporter who was at Marvel in 07 and saw how things came together..... They just sort of went on with it from there where in previous years they fell short in my opinion because the mix was just not quite right and the bodies of the very talented core just wasn't at that sort of mature level. Reinvigorated attacking football after a bit of a turgid era and my lasting memories are both of the birth of a team defence game (they were so well organised behind the ball by Harley, Scarlett, Enright and co) and the devastation with which their mids rotated onto the forward flanks and just kept killing opponents and kicking goals given the pace of the ball movement up the middle.

The Hawks I remember just for the way in which they probably took that team defence and structure of the previous five years and from teams like the Cats, Saints, Sydney and West Coast then applied it everywhere and all the time, but particularly up forward. They drafted, developed and stuck with a plan for blokes that were disciplined, could kick and play the way Clarkson wanted. Really a model in my view for how modern teams should get behind a coach. They had that ripper core in terms of natural ability also like the ones above but in my mind I don't think I've ever seen such a clear and obvious plan in football play out in a way in which there was very little opposing sides could do about it.

Richmond I reckon was a bit of a hybrid model of those above and a very cleverly coached side. They like the previous two mastered the full field defence but I suppose where they thrived in contrast was their ability to take territory like no team had to that point and then manufacture matchups forward of the ball that allowed their absolute stars to win games for them.

Four very lucky sets of fans and as a football supporter what a great bunch of teams to reflect on.
 
It’s literally what I said. You used win% and sustained success (I.e finishing positions per season)

What I find strange that I doubt most people would agree with is that your dynasty timeframes overlap and aren’t from the first flag to the last. 2 flags is also enough for a dynasty in Sydney’s case 7 years apart? That’s pretty odd.

What I also find interesting that you might have not picked up on yourself is that how you rank your dynasties is how you rank your players too. You primarily focus longevity over everything else. Peaks (i.e flags or numbers of Brownlows) do not factor in to your decision making, at least not significantly. Hence you rate Sydney over Tigers despite it being 2 flags to 3? You would prefer to have 1 less flag?

You can have whatever opinion you like but don’t try to pass something like the above off as fact. Nobody and I mean nobody would I agree with the above.
So just for the record, you're telling me that I am wrong in considering the teams that have won the most games over the longest period of time is an incorrect way of assessing the most impressive 'dynasty'?
 
So just for the record, you're telling me that I am wrong in considering the teams that have won the most games over the longest period of time is an incorrect way of assessing the most impressive 'dynasty'?

When you rate 2 flags better than 3 especially saying that Syndey are better than the Lions. Yes, your logic is flawed. May need to tweak your criteria. I’ve never heard anybody say a 2 flag team is a dynasty, never mind when it’s 2 in 8.
 
When you rate 2 flags better than 3 especially saying that Syndey are better than the Lions. Yes, your logic is flawed. May need to tweak your criteria. I’ve never heard anybody say a 2 flag team is a dynasty, never mind when it’s 2 in 8.

Don't worry about rating 2 flags better than 3.

Fadge rates a certain team winning 2 Grand Finals in the last 65 years better than a certain other winning 8 over the same period.

We call this fagic. Fadge logic. :tearsofjoy:
 
Don't worry about rating 2 flags better than 3.

Fadge rates a certain team winning 2 Grand Finals in the last 65 years better than a certain other winning 8 over the same period.

We call this fagic. Fadge logic. :tearsofjoy:
Lying, again.

I've never completed an assessment of teams over a random 65 year period - I leave that to the Richmond and Carlton nuffies.
 
Don't worry about rating 2 flags better than 3.

Fadge rates a certain team winning 2 Grand Finals in the last 65 years better than a certain other winning 8 over the same period.

We call this fagic. Fadge logic. :tearsofjoy:

That’s what happens when you rate consistency over everything else. Never heard anything like it. It’s ridiculous 🤣
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Which dynasty would you have preferred for Collingwood? You’d take less flags over having more failed finals series?
Collingwood's greatest dynasty was from 1925 to 1939.

15 seasons for:
6 premierships
5 runners up
3 other finals series
Only time missed finals was in 1933

It took the Second World War to end that Dynasty...
 
Collingwood's greatest dynasty was from 1925 to 1939.

15 seasons for:
6 premierships
5 runners up
3 other finals series
Only time missed finals was in 1933

That’s not what I asked. If you were to have another one would you want the Sydney or Lions equivalent?

You and I both know the answer hence the dodging of the question.
 
That’s not what I asked. If you were to have another one would you want the Sydney or Lions equivalent?

You and I both know the answer hence the dodging of the question.
I rate Sydney's as a better dynasty.

For all the reasons previously outlined.

And as I have previously stated in other threads, I would absolutely prefer to have supported Sydney over the 15 or so years highlighted, where they contended more often than they didn't, than have a four year period for Brisbane for one additional flag, followed by nothing for over a decade.

In the same way as I prefer 2 flags and 10 Preliminary Finals for Collingwood since the turn of the century than being a Richmond supporter and being non competitive for a majority of that time before a short window of success where you claim one additional flag.
 
I rate Sydney's as a better dynasty.

For all the reasons previously outlined.

And as I have previously stated in other threads, I would absolutely prefer to have supported Sydney over the 15 or so years highlighted, where they contended more often than they didn't, than have a four year period for Brisbane for one additional flag, followed by nothing for over a decade.

In the same way as I prefer 2 flags and 10 Preliminary Finals for Collingwood since the turn of the century than being a Richmond supporter and being non competitive for a majority of that time before a short window of success where you claim one additional flag.

^See people this is what I’ve been having to argue with. He’d rather have less flags (with a worse team(s)) but I’m the delusional one apparently.
 
Don't worry about rating 2 flags better than 3.

Fadge rates a certain team winning 2 Grand Finals in the last 65 years better than a certain other winning 8 over the same period.

We call this fagic. Fadge logic. :tearsofjoy:
Sydney did beat two much better teams for their flags than any Richmond faced, and achieved that as a neutral side and away side respectively. The 2012 flag is one of the best won this century.
 
Would you take the Sydney option?

Hard to say. Thankfully I’ve gotten used to my side being relevant almost every year in the past couple of decades so it’s difficult to contemplate years of irrelevance (though we certainly got a taste of that last year).
On that basis, the Sydney “option” has some merit. I.e. I don’t write it off as an option simply because 3>2.
 
Hard to say. Thankfully I’ve gotten used to my side being relevant almost every year in the past couple of decades so it’s difficult to contemplate years of irrelevance (though we certainly got a taste of that last year).
On that basis, the Sydney “option” has some merit. I.e. I don’t write it off as an option simply because 3>2.

Would you swap the 2009 and 2022 flags for 5 more years of losing prelims? Cause thats pretty much what it is.

Despite you guys contending many supporters were saying to get rid of Chris Scott before he won the 2022 flag as he kept choking finals. Much like Ken Hinkley. Most people don’t like “just contending” it gets annoying after a while.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Greatest Dynasty of the 21st century - Lions vs Cats vs Hawks vs Tigers


Write your reply...
Back
Top