Hawthorn 1989 vs Melbourne 2014

[Pessimistic]

I get where the argument is coming from, but why pick one of the most mentally and physically tough teams to illustrate it
A team which was playing off in its seventh grand final.

While the premise of superior skills fitness and tactics should say the trend would be for modern teams to win, even dominate, of all sides back that 1989 team (who actually peaked in 1988) to buck the trend


On the other hand we have a club which has picked the eyes out of the talent pool for nearly a decade, has wasted good young footballers and still cant make an inroad into the competition

Would qualify as one of the weakest set ups of all time

 

[FRUMPY]

Hawthorn would flog them like a red-headed stepson.

Jason Dunstall would still beat Lynden Dunn one on one, back then he'd kick 10+ on him comfortably.

I forgot that one-on-ones happen all the time in todays football. The zone defense would kill the hawks and their midfield. They wouldnt know what to do. Dunstal would get bugger all space in the forward 50.

 

[calyam]

The main differences isn't speed, strength or stamina but tactics. Restrict the Melbourne team to a few interchange usages and you'd quickly find them struggling to run out a game. Allow more aggressive tackles and hits and I'm sure the Hawks would impose their physicality on the Demons.

But tactically the Hawks team would have no idea what was going on. They'd be shocked at what was happening on the Melbourne interchange bench. Roos would push the forward pressure and then flood massively to restrict the Hawks greater firepower up forward. Would the Hawks defenders follow their man? And would they be found wanting on the rebound? Probably.

The more interesting question is could Melbourne win if they were required to plan man-on-man with almost no rotations. I'd argue not - under those circumstances the cream would rise to the top and talent would prevail.

The rapid change in tactics has made comparisons very difficult between eras. It is relatively easy to compare the 1989 Hawks to the 1985 Bombers or against the 1995 Blues and have a reasonable discussion about who would win and which team had advantages in certain positions. The same cannot really be said over the past decade - new tactics are constantly incorporated and improved to the extent that a game plan that was dominant just a few years ago would now be found wanting against a number of sides.

 

[Slax]

I think he is trying to illustrate how the game has progressed in 25 years and that fitness, skills etc. Of a "bad" team would overcome the best team back then

WTF, skills have gone backwards over that period massively. I watched that Hawthorn side hit Dunstall with regularity lace out in front of him from 45-50m away with ease. On the weekend I watch a Melbourne player in space try a pass a ball to Watts who has 20m on his own and the ball end up out of bounds with Watts rightfully shaking his head.

Some things have changed, but some things have gone backwards. Physical pressure has gone backwards in a big way, players like Dipper, Mew, Ayres, Langford all knew what physical pressure in key position would do, they also knew how to use the football and take contested marks.

to make this even you'd play under 2001 rule interpretations and Melbourne would have half there side injured by half-time. Not many people could handle the physicality of Dunstall and Brereton in a forward line, Lyndon Dunn on Dunstall would be funny to watch until Dunstall has 4 at 1/4time.

Hawthorn by 20 goals.

 

[SkyHawk]

Melbourne would probably win. Roos would pile the pressure, flood the backline, then it would be out the back up the ground with Dipper panting behind.

This given that 2014 rules apply.

If 1989 rules applied, Melbourne would be shredded apart like a leafy rag.

 

[Andrew Mc]

What rules are they playing under? That would determine the outcome as much as anything I reckon. And I suspect whoever was playing the Hawks the following week would have an easy run of it after the tribunal sat.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Not the years i watched him. Once saw him lay two in a few seconds. Maybe thinking of Plugger

His best was 23 tackles in a season (made 21 in 89 from 24 games, Ablett Snr 29 from 23 for comparison). So you probably saw 2 weeks of tackling there in a few seconds . Then again, they probably bumped a lot more.

As for Plugger, yeah, he tackled even less, but once he ran through them, they tended to avoid him.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't think people realise how much modern skills have improved from 25 years ago. A much, much higher proportion of the game is played with possession and disposal played under pressure, perceived pressure and just general lack of space than it used to be, but then more often then not players in the modern day and age still execute and dispose accurately under pressure. 25 years ago even the most skilled players shanked them under no pressure. Hawthorn wouldn't know what to do with all the forward and contested ball pressure applied by Melbourne, and Melbourne would be surprised at the lack of pressure being applied, they would be able to run it out of defensive 50 so much more easily than modern footy. And that isn't even taking fitness, recovery and sports science into the equation. Melbourne would win by 100+ points.

However
Do you play with 1989 rules, 2014 rules, a composite, or 2001/2 rules?

Do you take them out of a time machine to play 30 minutes before the game so they don't know they're playing them, two days before the game so they can mentally adjust but not have enough time to watch modern footy and adjust tactics, two weeks before the game so they can understand some basic tactics, 6 weeks so they can adjust their game and tactics but not their fitness, or six months so they can adjust their tactics and fitness?

If you'd let them have 6 months to prepare for the game, plus played with composite rules, I'd reckon it'll be close but Melbourne may just narrowly come out on top.

 

[moses]

B: Andrew Collins, Chris Langford, Gary Ayres
HB: Scott Maginness, Chris Mew, John Kennedy
C: Darrin Pritchard, Anthony Condon, Robert DiPierdomenico
HF: Gary Buckenara, Dermott Brereton, Peter Curran
F: Chris Wittman, Jason Dunstall, Dean Anderson
Foll: Greg Dear, Michael Tuck, John Platten
Int: James Morrissey, Greg Madigan
Coach: Allan Jeans

(plus 2 more players who would be on the bench but were not in 1989)

vs

B: Colin Garland, Lynden Dunn, Neville Jetta
HB: Jeremy Howe, Tom McDonald, Jack Grimes
C: Bernie Vince, Jack Viney, Daniel Cross
HF: Rohan Bail, James Frawley, Cameron Pedersen
F: Dean Kent, Chris Dawes, Jack Watts
Foll: Mark Jamar, Nathan Jones, Dom Tyson
Int: Aidan Riley, Christian Salem, Jordie McKenzie, Matt Jones


Now the idea is that the day before the 1989 Grand Final aliens from another planet (work with me here) transport the Hawthorn team forward in time to 2014 and for some reason the next day the Hawthorn team of 1989 are playing Melbourne of 2014. Back in 1989 Hawthorn was the best team but could that team beat a modern team with modern tactics and modern training methods in a match?

For the sake of this argument lets ignore the slight rule changes that have occurred since 1989 as the essence of the game is still the same.

So what does everyone think. Which team would win and why?

Is Hawthorn Rocky?

 

[Goody1971]

Would be fun to see Dipper lay a bump on Jack Watts

 

[master bate]

I get where the argument is coming from, but why pick one of the most mentally and physically tough teams to illustrate it
A team which was playing off in its seventh grand final.

While the premise of superior skills fitness and tactics should say the trend would be for modern teams to win, even dominate, of all sides back that 1989 team (who actually peaked in 1988) to buck the trend


On the other hand we have a club which has picked the eyes out of the talent pool for nearly a decade, has wasted good young footballers and still cant make an inroad into the competition

Would qualify as one of the weakest set ups of all time

That's kind of the point.

You aren't going to compare the weakest team of 89 with the premiers this year are you. Derrr?

 

[STFU Donnie]

I know this is a silly thread, but why Melbourne? At the time the thread was opened, both Brisbane and St. Kilda sit below them on the ladder, the latter by >11%.

 

[Monkey King]

A lot is being made of the 'superior fitness' of current AFL teams......

I think of players like Platten and Bradley. These guys would have been fitter than most of the 19-20yo's running around in the comp today. Bradley in particular would have easily been fit enough for today's game.

 

[Sprout]

WTF, skills have gone backwards over that period massively. I watched that Hawthorn side hit Dunstall with regularity lace out in front of him from 45-50m away with ease. On the weekend I watch a Melbourne player in space try a pass a ball to Watts who has 20m on his own and the ball end up out of bounds with Watts rightfully shaking his head.

Some things have changed, but some things have gone backwards. Physical pressure has gone backwards in a big way, players like Dipper, Mew, Ayres, Langford all knew what physical pressure in key position would do, they also knew how to use the football and take contested marks.

to make this even you'd play under 2001 rule interpretations and Melbourne would have half there side injured by half-time. Not many people could handle the physicality of Dunstall and Brereton in a forward line, Lyndon Dunn on Dunstall would be funny to watch until Dunstall has 4 at 1/4time.

Hawthorn by 20 goals.

Mentioning Dunn as if he's the standard for s**t defenders only shows your ignorance. He has rarely been beaten by an opponent this season.

It's also crazy to suggest that skills have gone backwards from the standard of the 80s. The game has moved beyond just getting it to the top of the square. Possession football necessitates a far greater level of skill. Picking out one example from each era to prove that the skills were greater back then is just silly.

Your overall prediction contradicts all logic when you consider the evolution of tactics and fitness alone.

 

[Pessimistic]

That's kind of the point.

You aren't going to compare the weakest team of 89 with the premiers this year are you. Derrr?

Why not ? Surely the point has to stand up under all circumstances

For mine itd be intersting how long the hawks stayed in cruise mode before decidng theyd better do something

As for the next week syndrome, is that in the hypothetical. It may change if the hawks thought they just had to win, or whether they needed to avoid suspension in order to play next week.

If they are to be surprised and given no insite into intended tactics, then surely they wouldnt realise how soft the mrp was and not make that adjustment

One real example where the 1991 hawthorn were surprised by an unknown team and relatively unkown tactics was this game where the unknown team did indeed win

http://www.afc.com.au/the-club/history/first-game-1991

Actually this highlights another interesting comparison

Team A gets to prepare in away it is used to and knows everything it can possibly know about the opposition, whereas team B just arrives on the mother of all road trips with little preparation and tactics or knowledge.

That tips the balance to team A with a fair margin to account for actual ability.

 

[RUNVS]

I know this is a silly thread, but why Melbourne? At the time the thread was opened, both Brisbane and St. Kilda sit below them on the ladder, the latter by >11%.

I picked Melbourne as Melbourne are a low team on the ladder but structurally I think they are better than Brisbane and St Kilda. I wanted to pick a low team on the ladder but at the same time a team that used modern tactics reasonably well.

 

[FootyJunkie]

put a tenner on the dees, can't hurt

 

[FootyJunkie]

I would like to hear more about the aliens.

 

[Pessimistic]

OK now explain why the saints beat freo by the margin the bookies used as the line, but the other way round

 

[Macca19]

Are players really that significantly fitter these days? We've gone from having around 10 interchanges a game back then to 110 now. Are the quick burst then off mids nowadays that much fitter than guys like Platten, Dipper, Buckenara etc. who'd have the stamina to stay on and play 100% game time?

 

[donbooger]

It is an interesting idea, it is one I have seen in many variations since I have been here as well. It always ends up with quite diverging opinions.

I believe the combined fitness/strength and the evolved highly defensive tactics of present would be too much for one of the greatest sides ever to overcome. Also it is not just football, I believe it is true of most sports, at least the highly physical ones ie Rugby, Basketball, NFL. Nutrition and training knowledge went through the roof in the 90s and early 2000s, this lead not just to superior professionals but even amateur and teenagers that are combining speed/strength/endurance better then the best we had a few decades earlier.

Melbourne 2014 can use there superior bodies to play a high energy defensive brand that cannot be matched by 1989 Hawthorn. Unfortunately it would be a flogging, Melbourne would have double and more numbers at every contest, they would flood Hawks forward line all game and get one on ones regularly when they go forward. Think Freo vs St Kilda this weekend but to a greater extent, your champions mean nothing when you can be so badly outworked.

I understand why this would be an uncomfortable prospect for those that idolise there heroes of yesteryear, but this is the reality of what sport has evolved to in the last couple of decades.

 

[bluebob1]

Interesting to see if Melb's press could be implemented as well if Hawthorn kept their structure ie. are you really going to leave 4-6 forwards inside 50 for Hawthorn against 1 or 2 opponents on the basis that the ball wont get to them because of Melb's extra numbers through the middle of the ground. I think you might only be able to do a 14 man press rather than 18 and it wouldnt work as well.

 

[master bate]

Are players really that significantly fitter these days? We've gone from having around 10 interchanges a game back then to 110 now. Are the quick burst then off mids nowadays that much fitter than guys like Platten, Dipper, Buckenara etc. who'd have the stamina to stay on and play 100% game time?

I think so but I'm not sure.

Looking at the 1500m running which is something like AFL fitness time trials the world record time came down by about 3 seconds in that period. So not a huge change. But the AFL players have also gone from part time to full time with so many sports science changes. I think Hawthorn were the first team to start with a dietitian in the 80's but that was about it in terms of nutrition. And who knows the science behind the fitness advice.

Whilst they played 100% game time they certainly didn't cover as much ground nor at as high intensity as the current guys do in 80% game time. And whilst they don't get the 2 or 3 little rotations for 2 or so minutes that the current guys get the game had more breaks - such as after a behind than it does now.

The modern players would be sprinting and finding space and the players from the 80's would be under fierce pressure. Even if the overall fitness difference is only 10% you just need to look at Saints v Freo to see what 10% changes in intensity can produce.

 

[Pessimistic]

It is an interesting idea, it is one I have seen in many variations since I have been here as well. It always ends up with quite diverging opinions.

I believe the combined fitness/strength and the evolved highly defensive tactics of present would be too much for one of the greatest sides ever to overcome. Also it is not just football, I believe it is true of most sports, at least the highly physical ones ie Rugby, Basketball, NFL. Nutrition and training knowledge went through the roof in the 90s and early 2000s, this lead not just to superior professionals but even amateur and teenagers that are combining speed/strength/endurance better then the best we had a few decades earlier.

Melbourne 2014 can use there superior bodies to play a high energy defensive brand that cannot be matched by 1989 Hawthorn. Unfortunately it would be a flogging, Melbourne would have double and more numbers at every contest, they would flood Hawks forward line all game and get one on ones regularly when they go forward. Think Freo vs St Kilda this weekend but to a greater extent, your champions mean nothing when you can be so badly outworked.

I understand why this would be an uncomfortable prospect for those that idolise there heroes of yesteryear, but this is the reality of what sport has evolved to in the last couple of decades.

If that theory is correct, would it survive the melbourne team taking the road trip back to 1989 ? With all their nurtitionists, computers, videos to support them if need be. Good luck fitting it into the old coaches box in front of the old smokers stand

 

[donbooger]

If that theory is correct, would it survive the melbourne team taking the road trip back to 1989 ? With all their nurtitionists, computers, videos to support them if need be. Good luck fitting it into the old coaches box in front of the old smokers stand

Dont get your point. What difference would the year be if you take the current team as they are anyway? You think the value of nutritionists and fitness staff is to be at the game on gameday?