North Melbourne and the 1990's

[Dan]

A time when only the best could win premierships.......no flash in a pan bullshit.

 

[Cuzz09]

Adelaides felt a bit Western Bulldogsish but they did it twice so its a big effort.

Pretty remarkable too the 98 one. Travel 4 weeks straight through finals.

 

[kid_a]

Mentioned this months ago. After 1994 WCE disappeared from the biggest games on stage. After that success in 94, they won just two more finals games in the 1990's. And they got a good old fashioned beating in most of them. North started slow but finished the decade like a house on fire.

From 95 onwards this is how WCE fared.

Loss to Essendon by 19, lost to north by 11 goals.

1996 - 77 point loss to dons

1998 - 12 goal loss to doggies.

1999 - 52 point loss to the blues.

North made 3 grand finals and 2 prelims. Made the prelim also in 1994. Playing off to get into the gf 6 times is better than 4.

ummmm you forgot how we flogged the reining premiers in the first weeks of finals in 1996 (carlton), and that we beat the dogs in 99. In both years were screwed out of home field advantage the following week due to the MCG contract despite being the higher ranked side.

I think prior to 1995 the only time north looked close to a a flag was 1994....maybe 93 also, so pretty even really when you take the whole decade into account.
Only difference is when West Coast were `down`in the 90s they still played finals

 

[Tandy]

Seeing how hard they are to win I'd say North underachieved in the 90's
Still the best team of that decade.
Interesting we had 3 teams win 2 a piece

 

[Pykie]

They got lucky we lost Hird in 1999 otherwise would've been one.

Potentially.

If Carey & McKernan didn't get injured we are likely favorites for 97' though.

We were an experienced GF team though, could of gone both ways.

But under modern double chance rules we would of wiped you in 93'. We kicked 100+ points 17 x times in 93', including kicking 150+ points 5 x times and 200+ points once. The young Roo's side of 93' was a much better side than the "Baby Bombers", which they probably proved over the next 7 years.

We had one of the best forward lines of all time that year, unfortunately for various reasons, they only really played together for 93' & 94'.

Evens out really.

 

[Cuzz09]

Eagles defence of 94 was great.

Hart Brennan Worsfold
McKenna Jakovich McIntosh

Stopped many a great forward line.

 

[boncer34]

Potentially.

If Carey & McKernan didn't get injured we are likely favorites for 97' though.

We were an experienced GF team though, could of gone both ways.

But under modern double chance rules we would of wiped you in 93'. We kicked 100+ points 17 x times in 93', including kicking 150+ points 5 x times and 200+ points once. The young Roo's side of 93' was a much better side than the "Baby Bombers", which they probably proved over the next 7 years.

We had one of the best forward lines of all time that year, unfortunately for various reasons, they only really played together for 93' & 94'.

Evens out really.

Hardly.

An inconsistent North choking in an elimination final against West Coast isn't exactly the same as the debacle that gifted you the '99 flag.

Though probably worked out best, I don't mind North so if we were gonna gift anyone a flag I'm pretty happy it was them.

EDIT: And lets not forget in '93 when you played us in the regular H&A we were missing our number 1 ruck (Somerville), our number 1 mid (Long), our FB (Fletcher) and our number 1 defender (Harvey) plus a others who boosted the '93 side in Grenvold, Mercuri and Wallis.

 

[Pykie]

Hardly.

An inconsistent North choking in an elimination final against West Coast isn't exactly the same as the debacle that gifted you the '99 flag.

Though probably worked out best, I don't mind North so if we were gonna gift anyone a flag I'm pretty happy it was them.

You choked in the 99' prelim, I hardly see a difference.

We lost to the reigning premiers and a side that would win it again the following year.

Fact remains, we finished 3rd and would of played Carlton in week one of the finals with a double chance, who we had no problem beating by 6 goals in the only encounter that year (a similar margin we beat Essendon by in our only meeting that year as well).

 

[boncer34]

You choked in the 99' prelim, I hardly see a difference.

We lost to the reigning premiers and a side that would win it again the following year.

Fact remains, we finished 3rd and would of played Carlton in week one of the finals with a double chance, who we had no problem beating by 6 goals in the only encounter that year (a similar margin we beat Essendon by in our only meeting that year as well).

I went back and edited my post but since you bought it up again.

We made 7 changes between the H&A side and the side that belted Carlton in the Grand Final.

Trying to pretend that beating up an under strength H&A team means you'd have done the same in the finals is laughable.

But sure you can believe an inconsistent team that finished 3rd before losing a home final against an interstate side is the same as the most dominant team in the comp choking in the prelim against an arch rival is the same thing.

 

[Pykie]

EDIT: And lets not forget in '93 when you played us in the regular H&A we were missing our number 1 ruck (Somerville), our number 1 mid (Long), our FB (Fletcher) and our number 1 defender (Harvey) plus a others who boosted the '93 side in Grenvold, Mercuri and Wallis.

Yeah you're wrong.

Long played in Rnd 15 1993, he had 33 touches and kicked 2 goals and you still got steam rolled.

Mark Harvey also played in Rnd 15 1993 and Adrian McAdam kicked 6.2 on him.


You're clutching at some serious straws with Sommerville, who averaged 10 disposals and 8 hitouts a game vs Ischenko's 10 disposals and 15 hitouts a game that year. Salmon still played in that game.

Fletcher was 18 years old, who Modra and Sumich both got a hold of during finals that year, considering Longmire was 23, a coleman medalist already and Carey was 21 and the AA Captain in 93', I don't think he would of done much tbh.

Between Carey/Longmire/McAdam, they kicked 16.7 against that Essendon defence, an 18 year old Fletcher isn't changing that at all. That's with Roberts and Allison both having quiet games, who both kicked 40+ goals in 93' as well.

North dropped some ridiculous games to bottom 4 sides in 93', easily accounted for pretty much every other top 8 side during the year (Eagles the exception, but still beat them over in WA), we should of finished 2-3 games clear on top. West Coast were our trickiest potential opponent, we got them week 1 of the finals, without the double chance.

Anyway, Essendon won, but no different to 99'.


98' may have been our best side, but 93' was our most talented. Longmire & Carey pre-injuries, with McAdam before he went walkabout and support players in Roberts & Allison is probably the best forward line of the AFL era.

 

[boncer34]

Yeah you're wrong.

Long played in Rnd 15 1993, he had 33 touches and kicked 2 goals and you still got steam rolled.

Mark Harvey also played in Rnd 15 1993 and Adrian McAdam kicked 6.2 on him.


You're clutching at some serious straws with Sommerville, who averaged 10 disposals and 8 hitouts a game vs Ischenko's 10 disposals and 15 hitouts a game that year. Salmon still played in that game.

Fletcher was 18 years old, who Modra and Sumich both got a hold of during finals that year, considering Longmire was 23, a coleman medalist already and Carey was 21 and the AA Captain in 93', I don't think he would of done much tbh.


Anyway, Essendon won, but no different to 99'.

My apologies ****ed if I know what game I looked at.

And no I'm not clutching with Pete, he wasn't great but he was still our best ruck.

I still can't see how an inconsistent team who finished 3rd losing a game to an interstate side is the same as the 99 balls up.

And using your logic of under the current system you'd have rolled Carlton and been in the Prelim you'd have faced Adelaide or Hawthorn. Teams you'd lost to in the H&A season. So by your logic of "we'd have beaten you in the grand final coz we beat you in the H&A" you wouldn't have even made the Grand Final.

 

[utility]

Hardly.

An inconsistent North choking in an elimination final against West Coast isn't exactly the same as the debacle that gifted you the '99 flag.

Wasn't a choke, just ran out of steam. Longmire did his knee in the final round and Laidley was suspended. Carey did his hammy late in the season and again in the Elim final, and we were carrying some other injuries. Eagles were reigning premiers and knew how to get the job done.

 

[boncer34]

Wasn't a choke, just ran out of steam. Longmire did his knee in the final round and Laidley was suspended. Carey did his hammy late in the season and again in the Elim final, and we were carrying some other injuries. Eagles were reigning premiers and knew how to get the job done.

My apologies. I assumed it was considered a choke by North fans since Pykie is comparing it to our '99 debacle which was an out and out choke.

 

[garlic munchers]

WCE in 1990

Beat Melb. Drew with Pies, lost replay by 10 goals. Lost to dons by 10 goals.

1991 lost GF by 53 points

In 97 and 98 went out in straight sets and went out first crack in 98.

Not giving the eagles the best side of the 90's tag when you win 2 finals games in 5 seasons going out without a win in 95, 97, and 1998, and getting belted in elimination in 96 and 99.

Get the Roos to travel like the Eagles did and without all the sports science that goes with it now and the Roos record wouldn't look anything like it does.

Eagles head to head record is pretty good against the Roos 1991 to 1999. 6/8 in Roos favour.

Have the Eagles just shading Roos and whilst you can only run out the players you have, Eagles were cruelled from 96 on by Jako, Worsfold & Mainwaring ACL's.

But Roos had best player I have ever seen live in Carey.

 

[Dazzler9]

WCE won more games that decade and were the only side to make finals for every year of the 90s.
It's only the Vic-centric media that anoints North 'team of the 90s'. Which is silly, it's way too close to call any team the dominant team of that decade.

 

[Macpotata]

I think North would have beat the Dons in 99 but that's irrelevant. They weren't good enough to even get there. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

North in 93 were hard done by injuries as mentioned.

Eagles in 96 and 99 were stiffed by that MCG Rule and also in 95 I believe as they finished above North, who beat Richmond in week 1. Still should have travelled to Perth however.

WCE lost at home to the Blues in 99, should have played them at Subi in week 2 though. I don't think WCE were good enough in 95, 96 and certainly not in 99 for a flag. 96 they had injuries with Jackovich being the main one as he was the best CHB in the game.


Roos choked in 98. Should have been out of sight by half time. Dons kicked 14.19 vs the Blues in 99 prelim, 33 shots to 24.



It's all could have's and what if's.

 

[Cuzz09]

You play those "MCG home games" at Subi and Eagles are basically in another 2 Prelims and possibly 2 GFs.

Couldve beens...

 

[Pykie]

You play those "MCG home games" at Subi and Eagles are basically in another 2 Prelims and possibly 2 GFs.

Couldve beens...

Might of helped us in 93'!

We beat you in Perth during the season, lost at Waverly in the 1st final.

Bizarre.

 

[tigertigertiger]

a force to be reckoned with, Carey did a good job of ruining that!

 

[NorthernLights]

I went back and edited my post but since you bought it up again.

We made 7 changes between the H&A side and the side that belted Carlton in the Grand Final.

Trying to pretend that beating up an under strength H&A team means you'd have done the same in the finals is laughable.

But sure you can believe an inconsistent team that finished 3rd before losing a home final against an interstate side is the same as the most dominant team in the comp choking in the prelim against an arch rival is the same thing.

“The most dominant team in the comp”... by a whopping one game. You weren’t even the most in form team at the time, that was Brisbane who’d won ten straight (who we beat convincingly in the prelim).

 

[Bunk Moreland]

ummmm you forgot how we flogged the reining premiers in the first weeks of finals in 1996 (carlton), and that we beat the dogs in 99. In both years were screwed out of home field advantage the following week due to the MCG contract despite being the higher ranked side.

I think prior to 1995 the only time north looked close to a a flag was 1994....maybe 93 also, so pretty even really when you take the whole decade into account.
Only difference is when West Coast were `down`in the 90s they still played finals

That finals system screwed the hell out of West Coast in the 90s

 

[NorthernLights]

WCE won more games that decade and were the only side to make finals for every year of the 90s.
It's only the Vic-centric media that anoints North 'team of the 90s'. Which is silly, it's way too close to call any team the dominant team of that decade.

The eagles weren’t really a serious premiership threat after 94, whereas North was every year from 93-2000. Same amount of flags but that’s the main tie breaker I’d say.

 

[Father Jack]

The eagles weren’t really a serious premiership threat after 94, whereas North was every year from 93-2000. Same amount of flags but that’s the main tie breaker I’d say.

What about the first half of the decade? Why can't that be the tie breaker?

 

[boncer34]

The eagles weren’t really a serious premiership threat after 94, whereas North was every year from 93-2000. Same amount of flags but that’s the main tie breaker I’d say.

2000 isn't part of the '90s and even if it was the team that lost the qualifying final by 20 goals was a serious contender?

 

[Dazzler9]

The eagles weren’t really a serious premiership threat after 94, whereas North was every year from 93-2000. Same amount of flags but that’s the main tie breaker I’d say.

Nah, I'll stick with making finals every year as the main tiebreaker, followed by most games won for the entire decade. Suits my argument better