Who would win? The '85, or 2000 team?

[Dan26]

Well?

[walshy1993]

if the 85 team was playing now with the current fitness levels and technology they would win hands down
if you dont take those sort of things into consideration then the 2000 team would get the nod due to superior fitness etc

oh and which team would sheeds coach?

[This message has been edited by walshy1993 (edited 11 December 2000).]

[Dan26]

Sheeds would coach both, of course.

Remember, the Sheeds of '85 was different to the Sheeds of 2000.

I'd pick the 2000 team. In 2000, we had a percentage of 160, and in 1985, we had a percentage of 138, indicating we were "about" 20 points beter in 2000, if you go by the numbers.

There were no weaknesses in either team. Both were clinical and ruthless. The 1985 team did have three heavy losses though, indicating, that when things went bad (which was rarely), they couldn't turn it around. All 3 losses in 1985 were by over 40 points.

If the 2000 team is NOT rated above the 1985 team, my question is why not ? What else could the 2000 team have possibly done ?
Did they not win enough games, or something? Did they not win by big enough margins (percentage of 160!!!!)

I don't think there is anything else the 2000 team could have done (except for that one more win), so I would rate the 2000 team above the 1985 team.

[walshy1993]

dan i have to rate any side with madden, daniher and watson higher
not to mention van der haar, thompson and harvey amoung others

but then of course there is lloyd, hird long, fletcher
its just to hard

[Grendel]

Going by Walshys thoughts on fitness levels and training all being equal then 85 would account for 2000. As to no weakness in either sides, there are shortcomings in both, no rovers in the 2000 side and only one shortish ruckman. Against that the 85 side didnt have as much run/flanking class, but thats the nature of the beast nowdays. 85 simply on the basis they were bigger and meaner, plus Madden would destroy Barnes giving Williams and Watson an arm chair ride. Fletcher would have his work cut out on a young Salmon (bigger and just as quick) plus Weston could hold lloyd.
Just an outsiders view who saw a fair bit of both.

[Pessimistic]

I didn't see the '85 side but Dermie at a GF Breakfast said the Hawks didn't think they could touch them, and would need a special 'plan' if they were to hope to win.
Given the Record of the Hawks side from 83-89 you would have to say that the '85 Essendon side had much better opposition than the 2000 team. Given that salary cap (rorting aside) has made the rest of the competition much more even, with no standout team.

Remember that Melbourne, although they had som good games in the season, were in reality not much better than any of the teams ranked 3-10.

As I said before I was in England in '85 but these facts would count for something, wouldn't they ?

[goatmaster]

Good topic Dan always like the hypotheticals
Seems like this topic gets its fair share of the Hawtorn supporters in doesn't it? 3 now
a big issue is under which rules? The fairy fart game of today or the mid 80's brawling?
Remember so much of the Essendon plan of the 80's was about slowing the game down & knocking the others around so thier size would wear oppostion sides down the 50m penalty was introduced because of Sheeys tactic of if the opposition mark it knock them down give away 15m we will beat them in the next marking contest .
Todays team runs oppostion into the dirt. Hence if played under 80's rules 85 by a mile todays rules probably the current team.

------------------
Goatmaster
the prime minister of the principality of Mooball

[James2]

Hmmm interesting.

I'm going to sit on the fence, but I will make a few statements.

1) Which Essendon 2000 player would match up on L Baker?

2) Ditto P. Van Der Haar?

3) Which 1985 player would play on J Hird?? Remember that they would have to be able to play as a defender as well as a midfielder.

4) I'm not convinced that Salmon would be MUCH of a problem. Although he was quicker back then, he had just come back from a major knee injury and was down on confidence- his own admission.

5) Lloyd would beat Weston easily.




------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.

[walshy1993]

watson v hird

now that ive gotta see, providing the bot played in the midfield

daniher v lucas
weston v lloyd
madden v barnes
salmon v fletcher

how about hardwick v harvey
that would be a great battle
thompson v mercuri

its just to good to think about

[sandie]

Who would you match up with bustlin billy.
It is also to hard to say which team is better, I have considered it, but the two eras are so different, fitness, speed, rules & skills, it is difficult to say. I would only pick the 85 side over 2000 because of their toughness.
Cheers


------------------
mantis

[The invisible mullet]

The 85 side was better without a doubt. I'd love to see Billy Duckworth sorting Lloyd or Hird out.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Legends as they are, the 1985 team would struggle to stay within 10 goals of the 2000 outfit.

Setting aside massive differences in fitness, strength, stamina, skills and team strategies for a moment, it really boils down to this :

1985 a team of champions
2000 a champion team

no contest

cheers

[Dan26]

BSA

The 2000 team was a team of champions AND a champion team.

As was the 1985 team.

I cannot beliee there are people who think the '85 side would win. Even if the 1985 side had the same training techniques and modern day practices, they would still lose to the 2000 side.

The 2000 side went 21-1 with a percentage of 160.

The 1985 side went 19-3 with a percentage of 138.

Based on stats alone, the 2000 team, is therefore about 20 odd points better. The question I ask, is if the 2000 team couldn't beat the 1985 team after amassing 21-1 with a percentage of 160, then what in the hell would they have to do?

Would it take a 22-0 season, with a percentage of 200 to convince people? The 2000 team had the best attack, best defence and champions on every line. The 1985 was also choc full of champions. But in 2000, we were unbeatable (well, almost)

Once again, I ask - What else could the 2000 team have done to convince people they were better than 1985? There is NOTHING else they could have done. Nothing. Like I said, would they have to have gone 22-0 to convince people they were better than '85.

The 2000 team would win.

[The invisible mullet]

Dan24 take a valium. We will never know who was the better team. For my money the 85 team would be able to expose the weaknesses in the 2000 team which their contemporaries were less equipped to do - the ruck is obviously one area where the Dons of 85 would be well ahead. The Dons of 2000 would struggle to matchup Tim Watson.

[Grendel]

The 85 team played in a competition of twelve teams with the lists being as deep and as best could be provided from all states with no restrictions on salary caps or recruiting.

The 2000 team played in a 16 side competition with salary cap restricted recruiting and limits to the list.

Depth of talent in a twelve team league is of course going to be stronger than in a 16 team league. To say that just because one sides win loss record makes them better for that is just quoting stats without any other justifiable back up.


Or to put it another way, there was a damn sight more better teams in 85 than there was in 2000. The Bombers side of that era went 19/3 in a stronger more competitive field yet for the sake of TWO more wins your declaring the 2000 side a ten goal better outfit. Thats garbage Dan.

Better Rucks equate to the ball being fed to the onballers, Watson and Baker would milk in the centre feeding of Madden who would DESTROY Barnes. Weston loved non physical types, perfect match up for Lloyd. Give the most underated 300 gamer in Foulds first shot at Hird, might not beat him but no way would he be totally disgraced. If not then mr.versatile himself TD would do the job quite nicely. Salmon WOULD be to talented for Fletcher Merrett was a fierce prescence that year, you have nobody who could stop him creating paths for the smaller blokes. Wallis on Roger? Please hed chew him and spit out the pieces.

Bigger more talented over all lines. Six out and out champions in the likes of TD,Merrett,Madden,Watson,Baker,Salmon against ONE out and out champ from the current side Hird (and hes the only one regardless of what anyone says about him).

Give me the 85 side, let me coach them in last years comp, with all the mod cons of today and they would win the 2000 flag as well.

[Dan26]

I disagree, Grendel.

There might not have been many outstanding teams in 2000, but there weren't in 1985 either. The 1985, and 2000 win-loss records were achieved against ALL opponents over a long period of time.

The 2000 team had champions on every line too. The passing of time, makes us "think" past sides were better. It's a bit like how the 1989 Grand Final seems to get better and better as the years go by. I'm sure in 15 years time, people will be in awe of the 2000 team.

I ask once again :

If the 2000 team is NOT considered better than the 1985 team after amassing 24-1 with a percentage 22% better than the 1985 team..........then WHY ? Why ?

What in the hell should the 2000 team have done in order to be called better? Would it have taken a percentage of 200 ? !!!!!!

The 2000 team couldn't possibliy have done any more, in making us believe they were better than 1985. If you say 1985 was better, then you are basically saying it is impossible to beat the 1985 side. But you have to remember, the 2000 team couldn't possibly have done any better. It IS possible to beat the 1985 side, and the record that the 2000 team amassed should prove this. It was "close" to impossible to beat the 2000 side.

So please answer the question:

What would the 2000 team have to have done in order to be called better?

Well.......What would the 2000 team have to have done in order to be called better?

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Grendel:
The 85 team played in a competition of twelve teams with the lists being as deep and as best could be provided from all states with no restrictions on salary caps or recruiting.

The 2000 team played in a 16 side competition with salary cap restricted recruiting and limits to the list.

Depth of talent in a twelve team league is of course going to be stronger than in a 16 team league. To say that just because one sides win loss record makes them better for that is just quoting stats without any other justifiable back up.

Or to put it another way, there was a damn sight more better teams in 85 than there was in 2000. The Bombers side of that era went 19/3 in a stronger more competitive field yet for the sake of TWO more wins your declaring the 2000 side a ten goal better outfit.

Grendel,

Wouldn't the league in 2000 be more competitive then the one in 1985, specifically because of salary caps and other restrictions.

The salary cap and other measure's are there to provide an "even playing field" for all clubs that are in the AFL. That is, that there isn't much difference of "quality" between the clubs. (Apart from the very top teams and the lowest teams)

This was not the case in '85.

Thus it would be "harder" for the Essendon team of 2000 to win games, and as many as they did, compared to the '85 side.

[Dan26]

I'm still waiting on a response.

What would the 2000 team need to have done in order to be called better than 1985 ?

[James2]

Grendal,

Whilst your arguement has some valid points, I believe that you are unfairly judging the ability of the current team, many of whom have their best ahead of them, against players who have been retired for years, giving people the chance to make a judgement on their careers. Who is to say that in 20 years, Lloyd, Lucas, Heffernan, Blumfield etc, will not be considered players in the class of Baker, Watson??

Of course, all ex posto facto comparisons such as this, encounter the same problems.

Cheers.

------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by James2:
Grendal,

Whilst your arguement has some valid points, I believe that you are unfairly judging the ability of the current team, many of whom have their best ahead of them, against players who have been retired for years, giving people the chance to make a judgement on their careers. Who is to say that in 20 years, Lloyd, Lucas, Heffernan, Blumfield etc, will not be considered players in the class of Baker, Watson??

Of course, all ex posto facto comparisons such as this, encounter the same problems.

Cheers.



James,

Maybe we arn't talking about how many "class" players each side has or will have in the future (2000 team, that is).

Were just talking about who's going to win the game if these two sides played against one another.

[Grendel]

Dan, i will respond but at least wait until im online okay. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif


Look im not saying your current outfit cant play, far from it. But your measuring a side in a competition that has been nurtured to produce EVENESS across the board. That theyve managed (through somewhat dubious means or not) to subvert that and take throught the record that they have, full credit to them. Besdies what does percentage have to do with 85 and 2000 going head to head in a contest?? Leave the stats alone for a minute and look at the actual players in representation of the two side that lined up GF day.

However i stand by what i said, no outstanding teams in 85? Hell we were still pretty good, the Doggies of the time had there best side for years, the Blues as always were thereabouts, the Roys and Roos were both excellent sides with the Cats handy at home too, a bloke called G.Ablett making like difficult down there. Dont sell the old timers short my friend. There was a very good comp going back then, wish we still had it. But im getting off track here, back to topic.


Whoever said about the draw being harder now. How so? More players to more clubs, means the qualitys spread thinner over those clubs. Sure we may have missed some interstate champs, but by god we also recruited alot of them back in the VFL days. I still think it was a more competitive competition amongst the BETTER sides. Plus the fact they played everyone TWICE still sticks with me for some reason. Sorry if i didnt clarify that point earlier.

Id take any side with a regonised all time great ruckman, a player with the ability to play ANY key possie down the spine except the middle (TD) a champion CHF with rrreeaalll mongrel (Merrett) the ruck rover of the eighties (Watson) and one of those genius types who just turned it on when he felt like it (Baker) wouldnt you, plus a goliath in the goal square who was the MOST fearsome sight imaginable back then. Thats a pretty handy set of players right there.

Of your current crop ONLY Hird meets the criteria to be judged with those guys (Long maybe but the injurys havent helped him). All the rest Lloyd included have a long way to go before being called champions a word thats given out to easily imho.
They also had a true rover in Daisy (very underated though he was soft) Williams. Which the 2000 side doesnt have. Ive given you match ups and the blokes from that era are more than capable of holding their own then theres blokes like Wallis, keyrisst makes K.Walsh look co-ordinated that bloke.

Bottom line is there were more champions in the 85 side than the 2000 side. IF they can go back to back (it aint been done yet btw) then i might change my views. But as it stands the 3rd best side ive seen is still your 85 side. The Hawks of 88/89 still rule http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/wink.gif

So there it is, no stats, no %'s nothing else. The 85 side had better players thats why they would win. Pretty simple explanation after all that lol! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Dan26]

It's HIGHLY contentious to say that the 1985 side had better players.

I mentioned earlier, that history makes us exaggerate things. The 1989 GF seems to get better and better every year, as people "recall" the game.

In 15 years time, you will be saying how many chmapions (many) were in the 2000 team.

You shouldn't sell Lloyd short, like that. Lloyd is the best full-forward Essendon has had under Sheedy, including Salmon. The 2000 side had an edgs at full-forward.

I can go through the litany of ruck-rovers the 2000 side had like M.Johnson, J Johnson, Mercuri, Misiti, Heffernan, Blumfield, Hird, Soloman, etc etc, but such comparisons are pointless, because there were great players on both sids.

I realise that a 12 team comp should prodce "on average" better teams than a 16 team comp. Less teams mean more depth. But it's not like the comp expanded to 25 teams like American Basketbsall, or Gridiron. In fact, more athletes from NSW, QLD and the ACT are playing the game right NOW than in 1985, making the talent, roughly the same. In 1985, a 22 year old Steven Kernahan was still playing in the SANFL, and was one of the best palyers in the country. He was already a champion at State of Origin level (he kicked 10 goals in 1984). In 2000, he would already have been playing in the AFL by that age.

It is still possible, even in a 16 team comp to produce a team that is just as good, or better than a 12 team comp. There is no rule that says it can't be done.

BUT YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION !!!!

What would the 2000 team need to do, in order to be called BETTER than the 1985 side? Don't say "nothing", because it is possible to produce a side better than 1985. You act as though it's imposible. It's not.

Given that it is POSSIBLE, what would the 2000 team need to have done, that they didn't do, in order to be called better than 1985.

That's the qustion, and still, nobody seems able to answer it

P.S (I believe they can't answer it because the 2000 team is better. That's my opinion)

[Grendel]

Bloody hell Dan, the question was who would win, 85 or 2000. I SAID 85, if thats not answering the question i dont know what else to say!!! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/confused.gif

Your the one that changed track by bringing in the win/loss percentage stuff. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/mad.gif

That wasnt the original issue.

The question was, Head to head Bombers 85 vs Bombers 2000. Id take the old blokes any day of the week, is it clear now???

Bring in names like M.Johnson (Harvey), J Johnson (Thompson), Mercuri(VanderHaar), Misiti(Baker), Heffernan (Williams), Blumfield (Hawker), Hird(Watson), Soloman(Duckworth). Of those id take Harvs Bomber Vanders (close one though) Baker Heff Blum and Ducky. Hird and Watson i cant split.

So back to the same old line, better players pound for pound and they had hard men like Merrett with the indefinable thing called 'presence' (Dermie,Lockett etc all had it too) on the field.

Now has that answered your question at last? The 2000 sides achievments were greater no doubt, never denied it or even mentioned it until you brought it up midway into the thread. Clear on that okay. Better acheivers, not better players or side.

Yet they wouldnt win in a HEAD TO HEAD contest against the 85 side (im labouring the point here) all things being equal, the 85 side was more talented in my view.

And they still BOTH be beaten by the Hawks of 88/89! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Can i go home now please http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/confused.gif

[Hmmmmm]

Great way to start a discussion Dan24. with this one and the one about not reading it im beginning to wonder if thats the best you essendon supports can do.

[Grendel]

Okay this time im waiting for the response. Instead of making up pointless topics to get to some strange sort of goal you have to make the most posts on this board (which i still dont get AT ALL, quality not quantity Daniel) why didnt you reply to me?

I still dont know if ive answered your query to your satisfaction or not. Considering that your the one calling for a response, i find it a little strange.

Cheers.

[walshy1993]

personally i think one thing that makes the 2000 team better is the tormoil it has been through
the mashmollow crap through 98 and the salary cap penalties has meant it was behind the 8 ball from day one

the 85 side was great, vanda, timmy, td, simon, baker, that just brings tears to my eyes

and grendel, i agree on your lloyd v weston summary but remember the sheedy of 85 would have had weston at fullforward

i cant split them, 85 team more champions, 2000 team more versitile, the 2000 team had more true utility players than any other side in history

if essendon win the flag in 2001 then the true comparison can be made

[Dan26]

Grendel,

I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and all that....

BUT..... the question "I" was asking, which STILL hasn't been answered (unbelievably) is this :

What would the 2000 side need to have done that they didn'd do, in order to be called better than the 1985 side (in terms of beating them head-to-head) ?

I'd just like a response to that question.

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by walshy1993:
if essendon win the flag in 2001 then the true comparison can be made

But then which side would you use to compare them then, Walshy. (To the '85 side, that is)

Would it be the 2000 side or the 2001 side?

[BIG POPPA PUMP]

What would the Essendn side of 2000 need to do to beat the Essendon side of 85'?

Simple, they would need a few more influencial players like a Madden, a Watson, a Van Der Haar, a Harvey, a Merrett or a Thompson!!! The Essendon team of 2000 have got some classy players, but dont have the intimidating players that the team of 85' had.

Does that answer your question??

Besides, I reckon the Hawks team of 88' would slaughter the Bombers team of 85' and 2000'

[Grendel]

Dan, i dont know how to say this, but your being deliberatly obsitinate on this issue because the answer has been given, its just one your choosing not to accept. (gee that was easier than i thought)

The question you posted is in the title of the thread, "Who would win? The '85, or 2000 team?" Ive given you reasons aplenty why the 85 team in my view would win. There is nothing in that title to even remotly suggest that your comparing them on a statistical basis, to which i also answered (the 2000 achievements IS better, there i said it again) that DOESNT make them a better side HEAD TO HEAD.

What would they have had to have done to been given the credit to be a better side thatn the 85 outfit? Its a non-issue as they already out peformed that sides on field success for the year.

Post the two complete line ups (include emergencies if you like) and talent wise, IN MY VIEW, 85 wins hands down.

Better acheivments yes, better side, no.

Please let me go home now pppllleeeaaassseee!

[The invisible mullet]

Dan24

The answer is simply that there is nothing the Essendon team of 2000 could do (within the bounds of reality) that would make them a better side than the team of 85. The team of 85 had much more talent in a harder competition.

[Dan26]

Originally posted by BIG POPPA PUMP:
What would the Essendn side of 2000 need to do to beat the Essendon side of 85'?

Simple, they would need a few more influencial players like a Madden, a Watson, a Van Der Haar, a Harvey, a Merrett or a Thompson!!! The Essendon team of 2000 have got some classy players, but dont have the intimidating players that the team of 85' had.



Oh come on !!!

The 2000 side didn't "NEED" those types of players that you mentioned. In fact, Essendon was undisputedly the most intimidating team of 2000.

The question was not "What do they need?" (clearly the 2000 side needed nothing)

The question was: "What would the 2000 side need to "DO" that they didn't do, in order to be called better than 1985 (in a head-to-head sense"

Grendel,

I know you are referring to the "topic question", but I am proposing a NEW question, which unbelievably, you still havn't answered.

I'm making the assumption, of course, that the 1985 side was beatable. I'm making the assumption that it was possible to produce a better team than 1985. Obviously, common-sense would indicate that it is POSSIBLE to produce a team better than 1985.

So, if the 2000 side for soem absurd reason is NOT considered better than 1985, then what in the bloody hell would they have to have done, in order to be called better?? Quite simply, there is nothing more they could have done, so therefore, they had to be a better side. Especially given the asumption that it is POSSIBLE to produce a better side than 1985.

Remember, in 1985, Mark Harvey was a 19 year old, who had played about 35 games. He wasn't the decorated player YET. When looking at 1985, we must remember that it is 1985, not 1997, when all the careers had ended. Just remember, the 1985, side didn't have the most dominating individual forward in the comp (Like the 2000 side had Lloyd), or the best player in the comp (like the 2000 side had Hird). But the merits of particiular players are a matter of opinion.

But MY NEW QUESTION still remains for you Grendel. What would the 2000 side need to have done that they didn't do, in order to be called better than 1985?

And Big Poppa Pump, I didn't ask what do they "need", because clearly the 2000 side needed nothing. I am simply asking what would the 2000 side need to have done that they didn't do, in order to be called better than 1985 (in a head-to-head sense)

If you still think 1985 was better, then you are virtually saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a better side than 1985. See what I mean ????????? !!!!!!!! Now, as I stated, it is obviously possible to produce a better side than 1985, so the feats, players, skill, and record of the 2000 side simply MUST put it above the 1985 side (in a head-to-head sense). If it doesn't, what would they need to do, in order to be called better ??? What would it take?

Are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for any Essendon side to be better than 1985 ? Because it seems that is what you are both saying.

[Grendel]

No Dan, the question HAS been answerd, its just you keep REFUSING to accept my answer (btw im not saying its right or wrong, its just my take on it).

Harvey at 19 was a TWO time premiership player with huge wraps on his future (which didnt quite pan out as expected ie half back rather than half forward) so bang goes that argument.

What do they need? ROFLAO Do you honsetly belive the rucks of 2000 (Barnes and Alessio) to be better than Madden Merrett and Salmon?

No true rover, as stated Daisy soft though he was, was an excellent little player and would have played more footy bar injury and starting his senior career so late.

Also the adaptabilty of blokes like Vanders TD Walsh Ducky Weston isnt anywhere near 85.


No im not saying its not possible for the Dons to produce a better side, (hell the Hawks would STILL belt your sides,either 85 or 2000) im saying that they havent done so yet. Why not take the argument up with Sheedy? He seems to think the same thing as i do that 85 was better.

Take the blinkers off, look OBJECTIVLY instead of SUBJECTIVLY and the 85 side is a stronger side. Taller,meaner just as good everywhere across all lines as 2000, and as skilled. Hird wasnt the best player in the comp (close but it was Kouta by a street until the knee) it didnt have for the duration of the season the most dominating forward force in the game. He (Salmon) came back for the final though, kicked six. So imagine them with his services all year (or reverse it and have Lloyd do a knee round one this year).

Your trying to tell me players like the Johnsons, Solomon,Heffernan etc that really have only played elite level footy for at best 3 completed seasons are comparable to the Harvey,Foulds,Thompson,Ducky. Or dont you know rate them the equal to the new blood (wrestling ref to lighten it up a bit)? Hell mate i saw enough of those blokes to know who i would take, and it isnt the new boys.

The question your now asking is a re-working of the original question.

They CANNOT do anything to rate as a better side for the main reason that they are NOT a better side. Stats can fly out the door on that one. As your finals system shows, its not always the best side (Hawks 91 case in point) that wins the premiership. Its the same theory applied to comparing the two sides here. The 2000 model is clearly statiscally a greater success. But given all other reasons,training,modern facilties,full time footballers if the 85 side had been playing in last years comp, with the hunger that was generated by 99's loss, they could imho have equaled the 2000 sides achivements.

Put the 2000 side into the 85 comp take away the modern facilities,training etc etc, and they wouldnt (again imho) have gone 19/3 more like 16/6 or thereabouts.

Cant be bothered with this any longer.

Bring the thread back at the end of this season and we can go over it again then okay. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Dan26]

OK, well we will agree to disagree.

But I hate comparing players, because it always ends up being pointless. One person mentions that great players of one side, while the other person mentions the great players of the other side and no one wins.

Suffice to say, you are understating the players of the 2000 side - by a great deal in my opinion. I can see no forseeable possibility that the 2000 side would go 16-6 in 1985 (after adapting back to 1985 facilities etc)

I mean, what kind of comment is that ??? They just went 24-1. I don't think it is very respectful to say that they would go 16-6. It's quite possible the 2000 side may have been unbeatable in 1985.

Just remember, things have a habit of looking better as years go by. (eg the 1989 GF) I would back the 2000 backline as a matter of fact. Best and fairest Dustin Fletcher, with Hardwick, Soloman, Johnson etc. Fletcher was better than any of the 1985 backline members, and there were some great players there.

But I suppose we will just have tio let the 2000 side speak for itself. I think history will do the talking in 30 years time, Grendel.

[Grendel]

So are you now saying that your backlines better than the Hawks of 89??? http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

Fletcher i may give over most of the defenders of 85 (though TD at CHB was easily as good a defender as Fletcher who btw got chewed a few times this season, Hay never had more than four kicked on him all year) when played back, yet not a one of the others is a s good a player as a Foulds Thompson Weston.

As for the assertion of undeafeted in 85 lol. You still cant show me where the 2000 side is stronger than the 85 side, yet they lost three times, so add a couple more losses for and thats where the 16/6 -17/5 hypothetical comes in. As for respect, why the hell should i respect the Bombers lol (thats a joke btw)
I respect them as a side Dan. However ive been around long enough to see deficiencies in that side that you cant.

You were what, 10/11 in 1985. I will take the judgement of this old man (35 now 20 in 85) and the ability to be able to asess a footballers worth than that of a childs perspective on a side he saw live more than half his lifetime ago. Or do you find it hard to believe that a grown man would have more appreaciation of footballers than that of a ten year old (even a prodigee such as yourself?) http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Your the one underestimating your own side Dan. They were talking just as much then about that side as they are about this current one.

[The invisible mullet]

The 2000 team on their day wouldn't beat the 85 team on their day. Their are a few teams of the last 20 years that would beat the 85 Dons but not the 2000 dons.

[Dan26]

Fair dinkum, this is frustrating. Jees !!!

A team has just gone 24-1 with a percentage of 162 and there are actually people that think they would have only gone 16-6 in 1985 (after adapting back to the facilities and all that)

Well, if that is the case, what type of team should the 2000 Essendon have been if they were to go 21-1 in 1985? I think it's insulting to the 2000 team to insinuate that they would have gone 16-6 in 1985. What would the 2000 team need to have done, in order for you to think they would have gone 21-1 in 1985 ???????????

Oh, and by the way Grendel, I didn't compare the 2000 Dons backline to the 1989 Hawks. Where did you pull that from?

I think the players in the 2000 side were just as good as 1985. Perhaps when the careers of the 2000 side have ended, we will see how great they were.

I said in an earlier post that the 1985 side looks fantastic, because we remember the players total careers. What we forget is that Mark Harvey was only a 20 year old at the time. It's a bit like looking at, say, Dean Soloman in 2000. Dean Soloman will probably end up being just as good, if not better than Mark Harvey.

The forward line of both teams was fantastic. Lloyd, Hird, Mercuri, Long, Lucas, Rioli (when he played) Bewick, Alessio, Blumfield, Caracella etc etc.

The forward line in 2000 was one of the greatest ever produced. The 1985 forward line was also remarkable, but probably not as "deep". BOTH had the best forward line and defence in the comp, but I give the players of 2000 an edge in the defensive element. The 2000 defence was so tight and team oriented. When Fletcher ha sretired, he will be just as good as TD. That may sound like a big call, but Dustin Fletcher just won a best and fairest in a team that went 24-1. He is tall, skillful, can ply back or forward. He is the total package. All-Australian too. He will be an Essendon all-time great like TD.

We MUST note that in 1985, Essendon lost 3 games, all by more than 40 points. Can anyone here honestly imagine the 2000 side losing ONE game by 40 points, let alone three !!!!

Look it all comes down to my original question. Based on the assumption that it is possible to produce a better team than 1985, then simply if the 2000 team went 24-1 with a percentage of 160, then they MUST be called beter than 1985. If they aren't, it is a huge slap in the face, because there is nothing more they could have done to be called better !!!!!

In 2000, NO team (except the Bulldogs) got closer than 14 points. So, why would the 1985 team suddenly outplay the 2000 team, after the 2000 team didnlt even go close to being beaten (and when they did get beaten, it was narrow anyway). The 2000 side just didn't know how to lose.

And Grendel, I have vivid memories of 1985. I've watched the GF (and the 2nd semi-final) many times over the last 15 years, and I remember the might of the 1985 team. I actaully remeber Round 1, believe it or not, which was played a week early at waverley agaisnt Hawthorn. i went with my Dad, and we one the first of 4 wisn over te Hawks in '85 (by ever increasing margins). I was young, but I have a great memory. This was "around" the time I started to follow football each week. It's not my fault I was 10 ! I remember the primary school wars, which I used to always win, because my team was so good at the time !

Anyway, go the 2000 side !! http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Grendel]

"(eg the 1989 GF) I would back the 2000 backline as a matter of fact."

So this sentence ISNT comparing the two respective lines? Thats where i PULLED that one from Daniel. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif

The assumpition your still making is that the same competition exsists today as it did then. It doesnt, the leaue of 85 was STRONGER across the board than the league of 2000. Five teams were shockers (Woods,Saints,Freo,Port and Adelaide) Adelaide might have beaten you last season if one over the hill genius *Jars* had been left on the ground to play out the whole match. That to me says something about the so-called greatness of this side.

Maybe youve watched the 85 video a thousand times (in the words of the Rock) IT DOESNT MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOUVE WATCHED THE VIDEO. I watched it LIVE. Even you have to admit that live football is the only way to truly appreaciate the spectacle of the game.

The 85 spectacle was stunning. Last years flag (though you would have won it anyway) wasnt helped by the armchair ride you were given in the first half. Any hint of a contest was killed right then and there.

Your frustrated?? Mate you have one of the best teams ive seen how can you be frustrated?

Accept them for what they are, a truly magnificent side for the period. One of the great teams yes. But you still havent proven to me anything by continualy going back to STATS!! They dont mean squat.


Solaman better than Harvey? Who knows, but also even if he turns out that way, he isnt in Harveys class YET! Dont pre-empt what may happen. Solaman might not be around for your mob next year,or Heffernan or Misiti, trades can and do happen.

Your PREDICTING greatness for the side. Fair call too. But a prediction can go wrong. (99 they predicted greatness too) the 85 side as mentioned should really be lumped in with 84. Back to back premiers in a stronger comp.

We lost six games in 88/89 combined. We SHOULDNT have lost any, thats how good we were. Yet we missed Dunstall and Brereton for pronlonged periods, Hall went down with the knee in 89. Whos to say given a run with injury like you had last season (and good luck to you for that) the Hawks wouldnt have lost any games at all if they could have fielded a full list most weeks?


Same with your side in 85 if luck had been with Salmon,fit and firing all year in 85? Now that is a truly frighting thought.

Cheers

[The invisible mullet]

Calling a forward line one of the greatest in history because it included Alessio and Rioli and an old bloodnut in Bewick is pretty funny. While there is alot of depth there I wouldn't call it "great" depth. There are no players of the quality of Dunstall of Brereton (Lloyd isn't there yet).

anyway the 85 team would scare the bejesus out of the 2000 team. One can only hope that there would be enough stretchers to carry off the wounded.

[Dan26]

Grendel,

Do you "really" think the league of 1985 was stronger? I already gave you the example os Steven Kernahan. In 1985, he played in a premiership with Glenelg, and was one of the best playewrs in the country, having already kicked 10 goals against the Vics in a State of Origin match in 1984. He was 22 in 1985. In 2000, a 22 year old Steven Kernhahan, would already be playing in the AFL by the time he was 18.

The comp wasn't truly national in 1985. The SANFL and WAFL were inferior, but not as inferior as they are NOW. The depth of players that now get drafted into the league from ALL OVER AUSTRALIA is far better NOW than what it was in 1985.

In 2000, the truly best players from all over Australia play in the AFL. In 1985, this was "almost" the case,but there were still some greats (like Sticks) who hadn't come across yet. I think the talent of the league in 2000 is far greater across the board. The expansion to 16 teams makes the relative talent equal in my opinion, when comparing the VFL of 1985 to the AFL of 2000. There were quite a lot of West Australiasn that began in the VFL when the Eagles started, otherwise they may have remained in the WAFL.

And anyway, you might have bene 20 in 1985, but how much did you "really" see of the 1985 Essendon team. I'm guessing that you saw them 2 or 3 times live for the whole year. They were probably on TV live once (against the Swans in Sydney), and the rest of your Essendon 1985 viewing was restricted to the footy replay. Most of your memories of the 1985 Essendon would come from the Grand Final itself (which I have seen more than you, because we won). Can you remember individual parts of play from Essendon throughout the H&A season ? No, I didn't think so. I believe I am just as qualified, if not more, to talk about the merits of 1985. I went to half a dozen matches as a youngster, and over the last 15 years would have spent more time watching highlights of that season than you.

[Grendel]

Dont get narky at me Daniel. Btw i saw them live at least four times (both home and away matches against the Hawks, the semi final and the GF) so i think i can judge pretty well thanks the merits of that side. Plus as stated before with Windy Hill just down the road from home at the time, sometimes when i couldnt get to a Hawks game i would head down there just to catch some footy. Plus all the other times in that whole period (say 81 - 86 when you were always if not the best team, one of the best around). So i reckon i can comment on the Bombers. Ask Dutch/Arch etc if they think im on the right track with my views of the relative strengths/weakness's of the 85 side.

(Side note, if you or any of the other Dons fans in here reckon i should go, just let me know and zzzippp im outta here okay).

As for the seasons highlights, do you think that just because the Hawks didnt win the GF that i havent got tapes of my own from that year that get a fairly constant work out. So bang goes another theory out the window.

As to the Kernahan bit, what hogswash. So maybe a dozen decent interstate players werent in the mix. How about the extra 80 blokes listed now across the boards? Thats sure to weaken the strength on any competition as it has with the AFL/VFL. Sure the champions are still there, but the duds are way more prevelant too (throw in a Wakelin for agruments sake, hell throw in two).

As to my memories of that day, they are hard to forget, Maddens dominance, Salmons dominance,Bakers 2nd half blitz Weston doing the same,etc etc. I could go on but i dont like remembering (strange enough though it may seem to you) that game much, but by christ it was such a sight its hard to forget.

So dont assume for others what they can or cannot recall. The difference between my views on the game against yours are, as stated, an adults view against a childs. That being the case im taking an adults maturity as being able to form a better and more detailed views on the merits of the side. (Again, strange as that might seem to you who happen to be the child of the time in question).

Btw you had a go at me over me bringing up the Hawks backline -
"(eg the 1989 GF) I would back the 2000 backline as a matter of fact." -

Still no apology i notice, that you did in fact bring it up, not me. http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Dan26]

Grendel,

When I mentioned 1989, I was talking about how that years Grand Final seemed to get better and better as years go by. I was comparing the event of the 1989 Grand Final itself (not the Hawthorn team) to the 1985 Essendon side, in that as time goes by, the "legend" grows. Similary, the legend of 2000 will grow, but we can't experience the "legend" for another 15 years. Things always look better when we look back to the past. Often they look better than they actually were, since things get exaggerated and embellished over time. The Essendon 1985 side is a good example. They were one of the greatest of all time, but the 2000 side was ALSO one of the greatest.

By the way, I think the playing lists in 1985 were over 50. In 2000 they were 42 (I think) going down to 38 in 2001. In ADDITION to that, in 1985, many top players (like Sticks) were still in their local leagues. So, regarding the depth issue, you are wrong IMHO. I'm sure the lists were well over 50 in 1985. The actual QUANTITY of players is roughly the same in the AFL in 2000 as it was in 1985. And in 2000, since ALL the best players are in the AFL, the quality would also be higher, despire 4 more teams.

I never actually said anything about the Hawks 1989 backline, which was obviously very good. They were an attacking backline with great players.......probably not as "stingy" as Essendon in 2000, but perhaps more creative, since the running half backs often pushed up the field in typical Hawthorn "waves".

Anyway, it's fu*ckin hot. I'm going outside to hop under the sprinkler. Phew !!!

[Grendel]

Have no problems with the numbers being greater in 85, but they did also consist of many permanent reserves types & the long lamented U19's! I think therefore that the grounding of players and the education (which the Hawks did repeatdly with Dipper,Tuck,Schwab etc all fifty plus games) were groomed in lesser (ressies) comp to become better senior players when finally given the chance. Nowdays its a production line process with the kids. The drafting remember was designed to EQUALISE the competition. Which i think it pretty much has. Most teams now arent much really. The few stand outs (Yourselves,North,Blues) of the past few years atest to that. Its harder now than ever i believe to bridge that gap between compeititve and a very good side.

Re the backline bit, it sure read in the first thread that you were comparing them, so thats were that line came from.

Think weve exhausted this one Dan http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/biggrin.gif But dont worry, in fifteen years, i will still call the 85 side better! lol (Cause they were) http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/wink.gif http://www.bigfooty.com/ubb/tongue.gif