North Melbourne and the 1990's

[Macpotata]

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.

Precisely.

 

[Macpotata]

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 }

 

[Father Jack]

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.

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.

 

[kid_a]

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.

I put less weight on finals wins when talking about how good a club was over an entire decade.
IMO how conistently good a side is over a prolonged period of time is the biggest factor I take into account after Premierships.
Finals wins definitely count for a lot, but you can easily have a purple patch for just a few weeks and make a season look better than it actually was, just as the opposite is true
See Bulldogs 2016 as the obvious example, but even West Coast of 2017 is somewhat of an example, we finished in the last 6, but we certainly werent one of the 6 best sides over that whole year. Conversly Freo were one of the best sides over the entire 2014 season but didnt even make the final four.
I think West Coast of 1996 were a better performing side than North Melbourne of 1997, yet they were eliminated one week earlier.

Each to their own though, everyone has their own ratings system I guess.

 

[NorthernLights]

and we didn't plumb the depths of the ladder in as many years as North did (or ever in the 90s)

Right, you were adequate for longer but we were genuine contenders for longer.

 

[Cold Sober]

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 }

Geelong lost 92 to steroids, every man in Australia knows that.

 

[Dazzler9]

Right, you were adequate for longer but we were genuine contenders for longer.

Yeah I’m not sure about that.

 

[NorthernLights]

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.

 

[Dazzler9]

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.

 

[kid_a]

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.

 

[Dazzler9]

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.

 

[Suma Magic]

An amazing team.

Clearly the best of the late 90s and second best overall of the 90s.

 

[EDFL follower]

North Melbourne, West Coast and Adelaide were exactly equal on the only measurement that counts!!

 

[Altum Volantes]

This old chestnut.

History is history.

...But very confident the Eagles best team of that era would have the Roos best covered.

 

[ManOfClay]

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

 

[Handsome.B.Wonderful]

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

That’s because those Bulldogs teams only made Prelims and never played off for a flag, let alone won one. North played in 7 consecutive PF’s, made 3 Grand Finals and won 2 of them.

Like the North teams that made Prelims in 2014 & 2015, the Bulldogs were making up the numbers.

None of the teams that beat the Dogs in those 2008-2010 Preliminary Finals went on to win the flag either.

 

[Macpotata]

This old chestnut.

History is history.

...But very confident the Eagles best team of that era would have the Roos best covered.

Different question altogether. That has nothing to do with being the best team of the decade.

 

[Macpotata]

To answer that question as well, it's very debatable. The short answer personally for me is WCE of 1992 and probably even 1994 were better than North of 96 and 99. Certainly 1992. The Eagles couldn't be defied despite being nearly 5 goals down { sounds familiar } and tasting Grand Final defeat the year before { sounds familiar again } They would have had demons to face during that game against a great Geelong side who was an offensive juggernaut. Ablett, Couch, Bairstow, Hocking, Hinkley, Brownless and co. But North Melbourne were very good themselves.

It's also about what you do in September. Both WCE and North were belted by some very good sides throughout their premiership years. Actually come to think of it North weren't really touched up that bad in 99, not by huge blowout margins anyway. Finals are a different ball game as mentioned and that's where it should be measured, especially seeing as though they had pretty much the same records during the home and away season. In 1996 North destroyed us by 10 goals, beat a very good Lions team comfortably who they lost to late on in the home and away season at home, and smashed Sydney in the GF, a side who also belted them in Melbourne earlier on { Plugger kicked 10 } after erasing a 4 goal 2nd quarter deficit. They were a bloody good side. North of 99 finished really well after starting 1-3 from the opening 4 games { lost 5 all season } They lost to Essendon again in the famous shootout where Carey nailed 10 and Lloyd 7, and the other loss came against the 4th placed Bulldogs by 7 goals. North won in a canter in every finals game as they did in 96.


The Eagles best for me does get the nod, but that's debatable. North 1996 were a great side and were arguably just as good.

 

[Macpotata]

This sums it up very easily imo. If you're the team of the decade, how is it that you win only two finals games in 5 seasons? The last 5 seasons of the decade.

1995 - Straight sets
1996 - beat Carlton at home, lose by 13 goals away
1997 - Straight sets
1998 - lose first week by 12 goals
1999 - beat the dogs then get smashed by Carlton

2 games in half of the last decade, and 3 finals campaigns with no wins isn't good enough for me. The Eagles losses, most of them, were very heavy. It's not how you start but how you finish. After 1994, WCE weren't really relevant in the finals.

 

[Cuzz09]

If its "the 90s" it has nothing to do with start or finish.

Both were great.

 

[The Warlord]

The main thing is everyone that despite the best efforts of the biased WA media, Carey had the better of Jakovich in their duels.

Jako would occasionally breakeven when Duck wanted to wrestle, when carey wanted to win, Jako looked second rate.

 

[The Warlord]

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.

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.

 

[boncer34]

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.

Already apologised for getting it wrong.

Nice to see I'm still living rent free in your head though.

 

[The Warlord]

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!

 

[boncer34]

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!

Wasn't all that convincing.... I was clearly wrong.