Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
and we didn't plumb the depths of the ladder in as many years as North did (or ever in the 90s). If most people did have North as the team of the decade it's because they finished the decade better. Reverse the decade around and most would've probably said the Eagles as they finished the stronger. As I've said before, the teams were almost impossible to split.Yet didn’t go deep into as many finals series’ as north. I repeat this I know, but I think it’s the reason why most people give North the nod as team of the 90’s.
Yet didn’t go deep into as many finals series’ as north. I repeat this I know, but I think it’s the reason why most people give North the nod as team of the 90’s.
Right, you were adequate for longer but we were genuine contenders for longer.and we didn't plumb the depths of the ladder in as many years as North did (or ever in the 90s)
Geelong lost 92 to steroids, every man in Australia knows that.North were the best team for me in the 90's. But no way in hell I'm going to say they should have won 1994. They obviously didn't even get there. But even if they did, WCE finished 16-6 and top of the ladder smashing the Roos by a flattering 37 points at the MCG { led by 59 in the last term ) and in the 2nd meeting at the WACA had the game sewn up with a quarter to spare with a 40 point 3 qtr time lead. Only won by 9 in the end, but they took their foot off the gas. Again.
West Coast smashed us and we had strong momentum going in. If we could beat them, GOD knows what the Eagles would do { see what I did there }
Yeah I’m not sure about that.Right, you were adequate for longer but we were genuine contenders for longer.
You made the finals in more seasons than us (adequacy), we were top 4 caliber in more seasons than you (genuine contenders). I reckon using the latter as the benchmark gives a better indication of who had the higher quality decade.Yeah I’m not sure about that.
You made the finals in more seasons than us (adequacy), we were top 4 caliber in more seasons than you (genuine contenders). I reckon using the latter as the benchmark gives a better indication of who had the higher quality decade.
Im with you, but I´ll give NorthernLights credit, he has his own view on how they should be rated and at least has respectful debate without just turning into an angry defensive keyboard warrior.
When bulldogs made prelims but failed they were derided. North fans use making prelims but failing as a reason they were better than a team that had a real claim to being the team of the 90s in west coast
Different question altogether. That has nothing to do with being the best team of the decade.This old chestnut.
History is history.
...But very confident the Eagles best team of that era would have the Roos best covered.
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.
Already apologised for getting it wrong.https://afltables.com/afl/stats/games/1993/051219930709.html
You mean that game in the home and away season in 1993 where you actually had Peter Somerville playing, you had Mark Harvey playing, you had Dustin Fletcher and had Michael Long playing? That game? The one where they all played and Carey and Longmire ripped you apart in the last quarter?
Grenvold played that game too. Admittedly 1999 Norm Smith medallist Dean Wallis didn't, nor did Mercuri (a very very very good player, but young then).
I should go back on Twitter, post this, and link to it.
Anyway, getting back to the game where boncer34 convincingly argued the Bombers only lost because six guys who were playing didn't play, probably my favourite quarter of the whole decade this last quarter, flags included.
I remember some Bomber fans afterward telling me it didn't matter, because at least they'd still have a club to support in a few years time.
They really showed us North types with that call!