The Greatest Sporting Dynasties of all time

[JohnS]

I came across this interesting article today about great sporting teams and captains...

IT seems like an impossible task.

Trawling through an immeasurable number of teams to determine which sides, from any sport on the globe, deserve to be named among the 16 best outfits the world has ever seen.

That’s what American journalist and author Sam Walker has done. Walker — who founded the Wall Street Journal’s award-winning daily sports coverage in 2009 — has listed a collection of the world’s greatest teams in his new book The Captain Class.

Walker took into account the traits of teams’ coaches and captains, their unsung heroes, their willingness to never give up, their ability to control emotions, their capacity to push the boundaries of what’s legal and much more.

Based on his research, Walker concludes that “the most crucial ingredient in a team that achieves and sustains historic greatness is the character of the person who leads it”, hence the title of his book.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/two-aussie-sides-on-list-of-16-greatest-sports-teams-in-history/news-story/a94442071401dafc93365ccf7fed640e

 

GREATEST SPORTS DYNASTIES OF ALL TIME

Collingwood Magpies (AFL), 1927-1930

New York Yankees (Major League Baseball — MLB), 1949-1953

Hungary (men’s football), 1950-1955

Montreal Canadiens (National Hockey League — NHL), 1955-1960

Boston Celtics (National Basketball Association — NBA), 1956-1969

Brazil (men’s football), 1958-1962

Pittsburgh Steelers (National Football League — NFL), 1974-1980

Soviet Union (men’s ice hockey), 1980-1984

New Zealand All Blacks (rugby union), 1986-1990

Cuba (women’s volleyball), 1991-2000

Australia (women’s field hockey), 1993-2000

United States (women’s football), 1996-1999

San Antonio Spurs (National Basketball Association — NBA), 1997-2016

Barcelona (men’s football), 2008-2013

France (men’s handball), 2008-2015

New Zealand All Blacks (rugby union), 2011-2015

[Bill Hayes]

I played suburban Australian Rules Football in the Eastern Football League which was a reasonable standard, maybe two rungs down from the AFL. Played against Vermont who went undefeated for 4 years with 61 wins. And this was against good opposition as well. I think it's some kind of record.

From 1988 to 2001 Vermont only missed the grand final in 1992. The Eagles won the premiership in 1982, 1983 and 1986 before picking up four in a row from 1988 to 1991. During this period Vermont had an unbroken run of 61 wins. From 1993 to 1995 they won three more premierships before losing to Donvale in 1996. They then won again in 1997, 1998 and 2001. After three seasons not making the grand final, Vermont won another three premierships in a row from 2005 to 2007 and then their most recent premiership in 2009.

[gweilgi]

16 minutes ago, JohnS said:

 

Based on his research, Walker concludes that “the most crucial ingredient in a team that achieves and sustains historic greatness is the character of the person who leads it”, hence the title of his book.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/two-aussie-sides-on-list-of-16-greatest-sports-teams-in-history/news-story/a94442071401dafc93365ccf7fed640e

 

How about Manchester United?  Under the leadership of Alex Ferguson, between 1986-2013 they won 38 trophies, including 13 Premier League titles, 5 FA Cups ad two UEFA Champions League titles.

 

[soutso]

2 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

How about Manchester United?  Under the leadership of Alex Ferguson, between 1986-2013 they won 38 trophies, including 13 Premier League titles, 5 FA Cups ad two UEFA Champions League titles.

 

Buying power...... since Chelsea and Man City have cashed up, wit a little competition their record is not so impressive.

In a more even era, Liverpool under Bob Paisley won 6 League Championships and 3 European Cups in a mere 9 seasons. YNWA

[Dimmers]

26 minutes ago, JohnS said:

San Antonio Spurs (National Basketball Association — NBA), 1997-2016

 

Sure the Spurs have been the most successful NBA dynasty of the last few decades, but did this guy forget about the Jordan's Bulls? MJ got one more title than Pop (6 to 5).

[Wertman]

Oh this is an easy one the BUFFALO BILLS

[dvickery]

Edmonton grads ... woman's basketball 

derrek

[PatrickEwing]

1 hour ago, Dimmers said:

Sure the Spurs have been the most successful NBA dynasty of the last few decades, but did this guy forget about the Jordan's Bulls? MJ got one more title than Pop (6 to 5).

I haven't looked too far into his criteria but using two other samples, it appears this guy's dynasty definition denotes sustained excellence across generations or derivations of a team, rather than sustained reliance on a singular, extraordinary player or duo. In other words, had management and the coaching staff constructed an atmosphere calibrated to winning in a given era and then progressing despite the diminishing talents of one or more key players? The Yankees and Canadians from the selections above highlight success from the DiMaggio to Mantle eras and the Richard to Beliveau timeframe, for example. I believe, in time, the current Patriots reign will be more than deserving of inclusion despite Brady's singular vomit inducing tenure of sustained excellence. They keep winning in a dynamic NFL and with a rotating cast...Again, haven't done more than a cursory glance, but there seems to be a rationale behind the choices beyond cherry picking the teams that happened to have the greatest players. 

[Ken Gargett]

seriously? surely it is the st george rugby league team from 1956 to 1966. they won 11 premierships in a row. if an NFL side or NBA side had won 11 superbowls or whatever the NBA people win in a row, does anyone think we'd be having this discussion?

to give you an idea, so those not familiar with rugby league, it has been quarter of a century since a team won two in a row, let alone 11 (the broncos, and we rave over that era). and before we start screaming salary caps etc, you have to go back the 1920s when souths won four or five in a row, for anything like it but not even half as good, but even then, i think there were only about 4 or 5 teams. there are a couple of instances of teams winning three but not for many years.

nor was it a case of a side coming good in the finals. the won the minor premiership every year for that streak, plus the following year (with the exception, from memory where they either shared it with wests one year or were 2nd). in other words, they completely dominated the competition all year, every year.

remember also that this was the days of no holds barred softening up periods. and players did not have the fitness regimes of today. lots more injuries but they played through them - heard one of the players once say that if you claimed to have a groin injury, that was simply code for wanting a trade. remember also that this is a game where very few have long careers, so - and this brings in what john mentioned about people behind the run of success (frank facer, in this case) - there was considerable turnover. not sure if anyone (perhaps one or two), played for the entire stretch.

only thing that comes close in league is the amazing run of Qld in the State of Origin but that is only a three game series.

[Ken Gargett]

the one thing that i do not get with that list is that i can understand if he had completely ignored australia, but how can you include collingwood for 4 flags and not st george with eleven straight?

i think that suggests his work lacks serious credibility.

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

seriously? surely it is the st george rugby league team from 1956 to 1966. they won 11 premierships in a row. if an NFL side or NBA side had won 11 superbowls or whatever the NBA people win in a row, does anyone think we'd be having this discussion?

to give you an idea, so those not familiar with rugby league, it has been quarter of a century since a team won two in a row, let alone 11 (the broncos, and we rave over that era). and before we start screaming salary caps etc, you have to go back the 1920s when souths won four or five in a row, for anything like it but not even half as good, but even then, i think there were only about 4 or 5 teams. there are a couple of instances of teams winning three but not for many years.

nor was it a case of a side coming good in the finals. the won the minor premiership every year for that streak, plus the following year (with the exception, from memory where they either shared it with wests one year or were 2nd). in other words, they completely dominated the competition all year, every year.

remember also that this was the days of no holds barred softening up periods. and players did not have the fitness regimes of today. lots more injuries but they played through them - heard one of the players once say that if you claimed to have a groin injury, that was simply code for wanting a trade. remember also that this is a game where very few have long careers, so - and this brings in what john mentioned about people behind the run of success (frank facer, in this case) - there was considerable turnover. not sure if anyone (perhaps one or two), played for the entire stretch.

only thing that comes close in league is the amazing run of Qld in the State of Origin but that is only a three game series.

in case anyone thinks this is partisan, i am a broncos fan, not a st george one and was a tiny kid when they won the last of them so do not remember actually seeing them.

[Ken Gargett]

right, you've got me going now. i looked up some stuff on them.

there were years when they were undefeated the entire season. in one year, they won all three grades (in those days, there would be first grade - which was the main comp, but also 2nd and 3rd grade, for the players who could not make first grade), an extraordinary dominance.

finally, if you look at all eleven grand finals, only twice were they close (if you define close as being able to be won by the opposition with a late score - so for NFL, that would be a score differential of 6 or less).

[jschrader510]

As much as I hate both teams, the Chicago Bulls during the Jordan era and the current Brady Patriots have to be on the all time list. As a kid that grew up in Indiana, I hated (and still am not a fan) of either team, but you have to respect the track record of success.

 

[NSXCIGAR]

1 hour ago, jschrader510 said:

As much as I hate both teams, the Chicago Bulls during the Jordan era and the current Brady Patriots have to be on the all time list. As a kid that grew up in Indiana, I hated (and still am not a fan) of either team, but you have to respect the track record of success.

 

Yep. How the Spurs make the cut and the 1990s Bulls don't is quite peculiar. And I say the 90s Bulls and not MJ's Bulls because they were not much worse when Jordan was taking his little time out and they should have won at least one title with Pippen at the helm. That one in 94 was highway robbery.

And also if you're going to have the Spurs' very wide dynasty range of 1997-2016 one must include the 2001-2016 NE Patriots.

I'll also submit that the 81-87 Boston Celtics deserve to be on the list as well, as do the 1950s MN Lakers, and the 1980-1988 LA Lakers. 

The NY Yankees really had four separate dynasties which is truly remarkable, but they have been around awhile: 27-32, 36-43, 47-62, 96-00. 

I personally believe the greatest sports dynasty with the longest period of continuous domination over the longest period of time was the 56-69 Boston Celtics. 

[Ken Gargett]

i think that pretty much all mentioned, whether by him or any of us, are fabulous teams/dynasties deserving of admiration (except for the pies because being forced to admire anything about the pies is unfathomable and cruel and unusual punishment and as likely as seeing me in a nsw jersey, with a dallas cowgirls cap and man u scarf).

the reason that i would still, having looked at all mentioned, go with that extraordinary st george rugby league side is that so many of those mentioned dominated but they did not win every year of their "dynasty". st george did. and that is truly difficult/amazing. and they did it for considerably longer than so many that have been mentioned.

[Baldy]

Happy to see the All Blacks make the list.  The Patriots should also be on that list.  There's a couple of teams, mainly from women sports, that I question being on there mainly based on strength of competition.  Or lack of competition.  Regardless it's just someone's opinion.

[wabashcr]

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I personally believe the greatest sports dynasty with the longest period of continuous domination over the longest period of time was the 56-69 Boston Celtics. 

I can't speak for world sports, but certainly in US professional sporting history, Russell's Celtics winning 11 titles in 13 years has to be #1.  

UCLA's men's basketball would have to be up there as well, 10 championships in 12 seasons.

Also, I have a hard time putting some of these national teams on the list, especially if their level of success was sustained only over a 4-5 year period.  Brazil 1958-1962 was certainly a great side, but they won 2 world cups and didn't even win a Copa America in that stretch.  Does winning 2 our of 4 tournaments in that time period constitute a dynasty?  I don't think so.  USSR Hockey from 1980-84?  I mean, yes, they were obviously dominant, but they famously lost in the Olympics in 1980.  I'm not sure 4 years of dominance with so few international competitions can constitute a dynasty.  If you go backward or forward to include more years, you also include more tournaments they didn't win.  US Women's National Team from 96-99?  They won a gold medal and a world cup, but that's it.  They were a terrific team.  But is that really a dynasty?

[joeypots]

1 hour ago, wabashcr said:

I can't speak for world sports, but certainly in US professional sporting history, Russell's Celtics winning 11 titles in 13 years has to be #1.  

UCLA's men's basketball would have to be up there as well, 10 championships in 12 seasons.

 

On a side note, Bill Russell's eleven titles, two NCAA championships, and an olympic gold medal make  him the most dominant  professional athlete  in US sports history. It can be fun talking about the best team or athlete at any given time, but Russell holds a special place in my heart given the way he played, how he was treated by the city of Boston, and the dignity with which he has carried himself since he left the game.

[Booyaa]

Buying power...... since Chelsea and Man City have cashed up, wit a little competition their record is not so impressive.

In a more even era, Liverpool under Bob Paisley won 6 League Championships and 3 European Cups in a mere 9 seasons. YNWA

Yet in that period Manchester United were not the highest spenders.

Poor, and bitter, argument.

[BrightonCorgi]

How about the New York Cosmos in the 1970's?

[gweilgi]

3 hours ago, Booyaa said:

Yet in that period Manchester United were not the highest spenders.

Poor, and bitter, argument.

Plus, all the top teams and indeed the whole of the Premier League were riding a tide of money.  Competition was certainly there.  

[PatrickEwing]

19 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Yep. How the Spurs make the cut and the 1990s Bulls don't is quite peculiar. And I say the 90s Bulls and not MJ's Bulls because they were not much worse when Jordan was taking his little time out and they should have won at least one title with Pippen at the helm. That one in 94 was highway robbery.

And also if you're going to have the Spurs' very wide dynasty range of 1997-2016 one must include the 2001-2016 NE Patriots.

I'll also submit that the 81-87 Boston Celtics deserve to be on the list as well, as do the 1950s MN Lakers, and the 1980-1988 LA Lakers. 

The NY Yankees really had four separate dynasties which is truly remarkable, but they have been around awhile: 27-32, 36-43, 47-62, 96-00. 

I personally believe the greatest sports dynasty with the longest period of continuous domination over the longest period of time was the 56-69 Boston Celtics. 

I disagree here. The Jordan Bulls were historic, successful, unique teams. But they were not successful without him. The Pippen teams were less successful and  less robbed than my Sisyphus Ewing teams. Once Jordan and Pippen left, the Bulls declined quickly, haven't won anything since and had their previous and current management called to serious question. The Spurs, meanwhile, have discovered four distinct superstars in Robinson, Parker, Duncan and Leonard and, arguably more importantly, integrated any number of role players into the mix. As an organization over the last 30 years, the Spurs are better than Bulls. The Bulls summited higher, sure, but lost the marathon. My analogies are confused, but my logic isn't. Spurs win. 

[PatrickEwing]

12 hours ago, wabashcr said:

I can't speak for world sports, but certainly in US professional sporting history, Russell's Celtics winning 11 titles in 13 years has to be #1.  

UCLA's men's basketball would have to be up there as well, 10 championships in 12 seasons.

Also, I have a hard time putting some of these national teams on the list, especially if their level of success was sustained only over a 4-5 year period.  Brazil 1958-1962 was certainly a great side, but they won 2 world cups and didn't even win a Copa America in that stretch.  Does winning 2 our of 4 tournaments in that time period constitute a dynasty?  I don't think so.  USSR Hockey from 1980-84?  I mean, yes, they were obviously dominant, but they famously lost in the Olympics in 1980.  I'm not sure 4 years of dominance with so few international competitions can constitute a dynasty.  If you go backward or forward to include more years, you also include more tournaments they didn't win.  US Women's National Team from 96-99?  They won a gold medal and a world cup, but that's it.  They were a terrific team.  But is that really a dynasty?

I'd argue that the Yankees winning 50% of the World Series over a 40 year span is more noteworthy than Russell and his incredible stretch. Truly splitting hairs and I'm truly quite biased, but a 20 of 40 work rate from 1923 through 1962 is something US/Canada will never see again. 

[Ken Gargett]

all of these are extraordinary stuff and full of merit.

but none, that i can see, are uninterrupted streaks. 50%? 11 out 13 and so on. great stuff. but surely they all still full behind 11 from 11. you can't beat perfection.

[NSXCIGAR]

19 hours ago, PatrickEwing said:

I disagree here. The Jordan Bulls were historic, successful, unique teams. But they were not successful without him. The Pippen teams were less successful and  less robbed than my Sisyphus Ewing teams. Once Jordan and Pippen left, the Bulls declined quickly, haven't won anything since and had their previous and current management called to serious question. The Spurs, meanwhile, have discovered four distinct superstars in Robinson, Parker, Duncan and Leonard and, arguably more importantly, integrated any number of role players into the mix. As an organization over the last 30 years, the Spurs are better than Bulls. The Bulls summited higher, sure, but lost the marathon. My analogies are confused, but my logic isn't. Spurs win. 

I agree completely that the Spurs have had greater success as an organization. The Bulls burned bright and hot for a very short time, but there was darkness before 91 and after 97.

Although they are undoubtedly a dynasty, it's also important to remember that the Bulls became dominant at a time of extremely weak competition and good luck and timing. If the Celtics hadn't been so beat up in 91 and Isaiah Thomas hadn't broken his wrist I doubt the Bulls would have made the Finals that year. And the Lakers they beat had no Kareem, no Michael Cooper and an injured James Worthy and Byron Scott--all huge reasons for the Lakers success. Instead they had the paint-phobic Sam Perkins and flopper extraordinaire Vlade Divac. 

The Pacers and Cavs were never really that great. The Blazers had Clyde and that was about it. The Suns had Barkley and KJ, but no real post defense and the tallest guy on the team was Chambers at 6' 10" and he was a horrible defender. Barkley's 76ers were a far better team. Seattle had Payton, who was a great defender, but Kemp was a lazy, underachieving mess. No real inside defense there either. The 90s Jazz with Ostertag and Byron Russell were nowhere near as good as the 80s Jazz who had Thurl Bailey and Mark Eaton--one of the greatest inside defenders of the era. The proof is the 80s Jazz's 9-7 record against Jordan's 80s Bulls. The Magic were a good team, but in 96 the Bulls had Rodman and Grant had been battling an elbow injury. With a healthy Grant the Magic had a real chance to beat them in 96.