Essendon 2000 has to be the greatest Team of all Time?

[GoldbergsGold]

I think people overlook the shorter preseason of 2000 because of the Olympics, Essendon got a head start by training earlier than the rest because of their 1999 prelim loss, it probably helped them losing that match in that regard. Essendon were not beating North Melbourne in that 99 Grand final, especially after losing to a scrub team in Carlton. North Melbourne were so locked in after their 98 GF loss and Pagan's superior management. The unproven assumption the "Essendon 2000 team is the exact same as their 1999 team" is one of the greatest myths in footy discussion.

 

[Chip Scab1]

I think people overlook the shorter preseason of 2000 because of the Olympics, Essendon got a head start by training earlier than the rest because of their 1999 prelim loss, it probably helped them losing that match in that regard. Essendon were not beating North Melbourne in that 99 Grand final, especially after losing to a scrub team in Carlton. North Melbourne were so locked in after their 98 GF loss and Pagan's superior management. The unproven assumption the "Essendon 2000 team is the exact same as their 1999 team" is one of the greatest myths in footy discussion.

Correct. We missed out on our greatest day ever because Carlton knocked them over. They were cooked.

 

[Fadge]

The fact 40% of people have voted yes to the thread question indicates that we can lock in the answer as a resounding yes, as no other single season team that would be nominated would get anywhere near that percentage of votes.

Well done, Essendon 2000. The people have spoken.

 

[Dan26]

I think people overlook the shorter preseason of 2000 because of the Olympics, Essendon got a head start by training earlier than the rest because of their 1999 prelim loss, it probably helped them losing that match in that regard. Essendon were not beating North Melbourne in that 99 Grand final, especially after losing to a scrub team in Carlton. North Melbourne were so locked in after their 98 GF loss and Pagan's superior management. The unproven assumption the "Essendon 2000 team is the exact same as their 1999 team" is one of the greatest myths in footy discussion.

Essendon of 1999 was certainly not as good as the 2000 side, but the 1999 Essendon side would have easily defeated North Melbourne, and it's ridiculous based on the available evidence to come to any other conclusion. As an Essendon supporter myself, I could say with supreme confidence that we would have defeated North Melbourne.

Consider this:

• Essendon had no injuries, whilst North Melbourne had Carey not 100% and Stevens with an horriffic ankle injury, in which he was hobbling all game.
• Essendon had already beaten North Melbourne twice during the season.
• Essendon was (and remained ironically) unbeaten against all teams in the top-4 on the ladder. The Bombers didn't lose to a top-4 team all season.
• North Melbourne's performance in the Grand Final was average at best. They could only manage the same amount of scoring shots as Carlton (both teams had 29 scoring shots) despite Carlton being a mid-table also-ran.
• Had Essendon won the Preliminary Final as they should have (the Dons had 9 more scoring shots than Carlton), they would have entered the Grand Final having won 16 of their last 17 games, no injuries, versus an opponent with unfit players who they had already beaten twice, having not lost to a top-4 team all season.

There is no way North was winning that match. Simply no way. They only won because they were playing Carlton.

Denis Pagan even said it himself. He admitted they would have lost to Essendon.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Essendon had no injuries, whilst North Melbourne had Carey not 100% and Stevens with an horriffic ankle injury, in which he was hobbling all game.

This is incredibly dishonest, Essendon were without 2 "then" key players who had won best and fairest awards in James Hird and Scott Lucas. Even the eventual best and fairest winner young Jason Johnson, who would be critical in 2000 was out. Also, the "more fresh" excuse is like saying Geelong were a shoe in for the premiership in 2025 because of no injuries, while Brisbane were banged up and played more finals games.

Essendon had already beaten North Melbourne twice during the season.

That's regular season, that's like saying 2024 Port Adelaide who smashed Sydney by 112 points 5 weeks before the prelim were a shoe in to win that prelim. Essendon had lost to North Melbourne the previous final series, so North knew how to beat Essendon when it mattered (at least before 2000).

Essendon was (and remained ironically) unbeaten against all teams in the top-4 on the ladder. The Bombers didn't lose to a top-4 team all season.

Lost to the lower ranked teams, though, doesn't really support your case when they lost to lower ranked teams.

North Melbourne's performance in the Grand Final was average at best. They could only manage the same amount of scoring shots as Carlton (both teams had 29 scoring shots) despite Carlton being a mid-table also-ran.

This is ironic when Essendon couldn't even beat 6th placed Carlton who were smashed by Brisbane by 69 points only 2 weeks earlier.

Had Essendon won the Preliminary Final as they should have (the Dons had 9 more scoring shots than Carlton), they would have entered the Grand Final having won 16 of their last 17 games, no injuries, versus an opponent with unfit players who they had already beaten twice, having not lost to a top-4 team all season.

Again, Essendon did in fact have key injuries, shocked you're even saying otherwise when legends Hird and Lucas were out. It's not like those guys were cooked either, they were in their prime. And teams have had long winning streaks and lost grand finals like 2008 Geelong.

There is no way North was winning that match. Simply no way. They only won because they were playing Carlton.

Denis Pagan even said it himself. He admitted they would have lost to Essendon.

Pagan thought Essendon were going to beat Carlton...

I think had Essendon actually been at real full strength it might have put them in the box seat to really push North Melbourne, but they weren't, I don't know why you're even telling me they had no injuries when Essendon had some really critical omissions. Those 3 guys were critical to Essendon's success in 2000 and they were either out injured or omitted for that 1999 final series. It also further proves my point that the 2000 Essendon team is no where near in the same league as their 1999 team.

 

[Irish BlueBagger]

Essendon of 1999 was certainly not as good as the 2000 side, but the 1999 Essendon side would have easily defeated North Melbourne, and it's ridiculous based on the available evidence to come to any other conclusion. As an Essendon supporter myself, I could say with supreme confidence that we would have defeated North Melbourne.

Consider this:

• Essendon had no injuries, whilst North Melbourne had Carey not 100% and Stevens with an horriffic ankle injury, in which he was hobbling all game.
• Essendon had already beaten North Melbourne twice during the season.
• Essendon was (and remained ironically) unbeaten against all teams in the top-4 on the ladder. The Bombers didn't lose to a top-4 team all season.
• North Melbourne's performance in the Grand Final was average at best. They could only manage the same amount of scoring shots as Carlton (both teams had 29 scoring shots) despite Carlton being a mid-table also-ran.
• Had Essendon won the Preliminary Final as they should have (the Dons had 9 more scoring shots than Carlton), they would have entered the Grand Final having won 16 of their last 17 games, no injuries, versus an opponent with unfit players who they had already beaten twice, having not lost to a top-4 team all season.

There is no way North was winning that match. Simply no way. They only won because they were playing Carlton.

Denis Pagan even said it himself. He admitted they would have lost to Essendon.

I'm not so sure about that. The Roos were determined to prove a point in 1999, after throwing away the flag the previous year. Didn't they beat you in the finals in 1998 as well?

The 1999 version of Essendon wasn't quite as driven or as polished as the 2000 version either. If you were good enough to win the premiership in 1999, then you wouldn't have slipped up against Carlton in that prelim final.

That game was well worth winning anyway irrespective of what happened the following week.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

I'm not so sure about that. The Roos were determined to prove a point in 1999, after throwing away the flag the previous year. Didn't they beat you in the finals in 1998 as well?

The 1999 version of Essendon wasn't quite as driven or as polished as the 2000 version either. If you were good enough to win the premiership in 1999, then you wouldn't have slipped up against Carlton in that prelim final.

That game was well worth winning anyway irrespective of what happened the following week.

They beat them in 98 but you can't compare them, they finished 8th on the ladder.

 

[Gibbke]

The best single season team? Yeah, sure, the numbers are there. It's important to remember though, as usually happens, the teams who have standout seasons that attract a "greatest ever" label enjoy a decline from other sides who'd been smacking them around before that, and the matchups they face in the big games are often unexpected. No one would have forecast Melbourne to be the 2000 challenger at the season start, Carlton filled a void with a strong season that belied the relative mediocrity of the seasons either side of it, and the dominance of West Coast and North was gone, with Brisbane doing that yo-yo thing, finals one season and spoon the next, that Leigh Matthews eventually smacked out of them by taking them to the movies. A strong indicator of the dominance of any team in a year is percentage, and while Essendon's was supreme in 2000, all of the old challengers slumped, and the new replacements weren't going to leave legacies as history showed, so a good and primed team was destined to take advantage of the vacuum...

Essendon did the same thing in 1985 when both Hawthorn and Carlton dipped to the point where both went on massive WA/SA raids to rebuild for 1986, enabling a couple of perennially nothing teams in North and Footscray to fill the void, and meaning that a perfectly timed period of Bomber strength went virtually unchallenged...normality restored the next year, and just like 2000, Essendon fell away due to injury...

So yeah, they get the title, but it's officially "Best Season Ever". They don't get "Best Team Ever", implying strength over multiple seasons, because Geelong for one have them totally covered, marginally ahead of Brisbane maybe, depending on my mood (I don't think I've ever called Geelong the GOAT on Easter Monday!). No side, however, matches the 1988-89 Hawks...and probably never will, because no one would be able to afford it...

 

[Dan26]

This is incredibly dishonest, Essendon were without 2 "then" key players who had won best and fairest awards in James Hird and Scott Lucas. Even the eventual best and fairest winner young Jason Johnson, who would be critical in 2000 was out. Also, the "more fresh" excuse is like saying Geelong were a shoe in for the premiership in 2025 because of no injuries, while Brisbane were banged up and played more finals games.

Hird had been out since round 2 and Lucas had been out for months with a broken leg. The Essendon side that had gone 14-1 over the last 15 games did not consist of James Hird and Scott Lucas. Essendon was fresh and injury free. Essendon suffered no injuries in the Preliminary Final and clearly were playing better football than North Melbourne, who, crazily couldn't even manage more scoring shots than Carlton in the Grand Final.

Essendon had lost to North Melbourne the previous final series, so North knew how to beat Essendon when it mattered (at least before 2000).

In the 1998 Finals series Essendon finished 8th with a 12-10 win-loss record (North finished 1st). Essendon were dead-set average in 1998. Essendon had already beaten North twice during the year in 1999 and the Bombers were (and remained) unbeaten against every top-4 side in 1999. There is no way North were beating Essendon and Denis Pagan knew it.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/sacked-podcast-north-melbournes-destiny-in-1999-was-decided-by-shock-preliminary-final-result-says-denis-pagan/news-story/219825cf066a9c7f822f8e044120a726

From the above article:
Asked 21 years on what would have happened if his Kangaroos had met Kevin Sheedy’s Bombers in the 1999 Grand Final, Pagan confessed: “If Essendon had won by four goals, I wouldn’t have been surprised.

“We weren’t the best team; Essendon were. I reckon if you played that 10 times in a row Essendon would have beaten Carlton in the prelim final and who knows if they would have beaten us, but we would have needed a lot of luck on the day.”

Lost to the lower ranked teams, though, doesn't really support your case when they lost to lower ranked teams.

Of course it supports the case. The Bombers didn't lose a match all year to anyone in the top-4. Not to mention Denis Pagan ADMITTING that he side was unlikely to win.

This is ironic when Essendon couldn't even beat 6th placed Carlton who were smashed by Brisbane by 69 points only 2 weeks earlier.

Really buddy? That's your argument? LOL. A fluke loss that was a 1 in 20 result in a match that Essendon had 9 more scoring shots (the score was 14.19 to 16.8) is somehow "proof" that North Melbourne would have beaten Essendon when their own coach admitted they wouldn't have and North Melbourne themselves could only manage the same amount of scoring shots as Carlton in the Grand Final (29 each)

Again, Essendon did in fact have key injuries, shocked you're even saying otherwise when legends Hird and Lucas were out. It's not like those guys were cooked either, they were in their prime. And teams have had long winning streaks and lost grand finals like 2008 Geelong.

Those players had been out for months. Months. Hird had been out all year. Essendon had climbed to an 18-4 record WITHOUT James Hird and had was close to unbeaten in the second half of the season without Hird and Lucas. The players that had been out on the field contributing to Essendon's 14-1 stretch entering the Prelim were all available. The side suffered no injuries in the Prelim.


More from Pagan at 20:34 into the below video
..."Essendon were the best side by a mile"

And Pagan at 21:00
..."We were NOT the best side in '99. Essendon were"

And Pagan at 21:38
...."But we certainly weren't the best side in the competition in '99"



Yes it's true that Essendon was far better in 2000 than in 1999, but Essendon's form in the second half of 1999 was exceptional, they were unbeaten against all the top teams and would clearly have defeated North in the 1999 Grand Final had they met. I've seen Essendon live in over 500 games and I know my club like the back of my hand. I would have been supremely confident that we would have won that match had we played North.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

The best single season team? Yeah, sure, the numbers are there. It's important to remember though, as usually happens, the teams who have standout seasons that attract a "greatest ever" label enjoy a decline from other sides who'd been smacking them around before that, and the matchups they face in the big games are often unexpected. No one would have forecast Melbourne to be the 2000 challenger at the season start, Carlton filled a void with a strong season that belied the relative mediocrity of the seasons either side of it, and the dominance of West Coast and North was gone, with Brisbane doing that yo-yo thing, finals one season and spoon the next, that Leigh Matthews eventually smacked out of them by taking them to the movies. A strong indicator of the dominance of any team in a year is percentage, and while Essendon's was supreme in 2000, all of the old challengers slumped, and the new replacements weren't going to leave legacies as history showed, so a good and primed team was destined to take advantage of the vacuum...

Essendon did the same thing in 1985 when both Hawthorn and Carlton dipped to the point where both went on massive WA/SA raids to rebuild for 1986, enabling a couple of perennially nothing teams in North and Footscray to fill the void, and meaning that a perfectly timed period of Bomber strength went virtually unchallenged...normality restored the next year, and just like 2000, Essendon fell away due to injury...

So yeah, they get the title, but it's officially "Best Season Ever". They don't get "Best Team Ever", implying strength over multiple seasons, because Geelong for one have them totally covered, marginally ahead of Brisbane maybe, depending on my mood (I don't think I've ever called Geelong the GOAT on Easter Monday!). No side, however, matches the 1988-89 Hawks...and probably never will, because no one would be able to afford it...

Carlton were good that season. 16-6 sides have topped the ladder with a record like that. Bombers smashed them in the prelim. All you can do is beat who's in front of you amd they did that.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Hird had been out since round 2 and Lucas had been out for months with a broken leg. The Essendon side that had gone 14-1 over the last 15 games did not consist of James Hird and Scott Lucas. Essendon was fresh and injury free. Essendon suffered no injuries in the Preliminary Final and clearly were playing better football than North Melbourne, who, crazily couldn't even manage more scoring shots than Carlton in the Grand Final.



In the 1998 Finals series Essendon finished 8th with a 12-10 win-loss record (North finished 1st). Essendon were dead-set average in 1998. Essendon had already beaten North twice during the year in 1999 and the Bombers were (and remained) unbeaten against every top-4 side in 1999. There is no way North were beating Essendon and Denis Pagan knew it.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/sacked-podcast-north-melbournes-destiny-in-1999-was-decided-by-shock-preliminary-final-result-says-denis-pagan/news-story/219825cf066a9c7f822f8e044120a726

From the above article:
Asked 21 years on what would have happened if his Kangaroos had met Kevin Sheedy’s Bombers in the 1999 Grand Final, Pagan confessed: “If Essendon had won by four goals, I wouldn’t have been surprised.

“We weren’t the best team; Essendon were. I reckon if you played that 10 times in a row Essendon would have beaten Carlton in the prelim final and who knows if they would have beaten us, but we would have needed a lot of luck on the day.”




Of course it supports the case. The Bombers didn't lose a match all year to anyone in the top-4. Not to mention Denis Pagan ADMITTING that he side was unlikely to win.



Really buddy? That's your argument? LOL. A fluke loss that was a 1 in 20 result in a match that Essendon had 9 more scoring shots (the score was 14.19 to 16.8) is somehow "proof" that North Melbourne would have beaten Essendon when their own coach admitted they wouldn't have and North Melbourne themselves could only manage the same amount of scoring shots as Carlton in the Grand Final (29 each)




Those players had been out for months. Months. Hird had been out all year. Essendon had climbed to an 18-4 record WITHOUT James Hird and had was close to unbeaten in the second half of the season without Hird and Lucas. The players that had been out on the field contributing to Essendon's 14-1 stretch entering the Prelim were all available. The side suffered no injuries in the Prelim.


More from Pagan at 20:34 into the below video
..."Essendon were the best side by a mile"

And Pagan at 21:00
..."We were NOT the best side in '99. Essendon were"

And Pagan at 21:38
...."But we certainly weren't the best side in the competition in '99"



Yes it's true that Essendon was far better in 2000 than in 1999, but Essendon's form in the second half of 1999 was exceptional, they were unbeaten against all the top teams and would clearly have defeated North in the 1999 Grand Final had they met. I've seen Essendon live in over 500 games and I know my club like the back of my hand. I would have been supremely confident that we would have won that match had we played North.

I seriously question would have beaten North 99 angle. Would likely have provided stiffer opposition than Sydney but North had proven they were a strong side that season

 

[Dan26]

I seriously question would have beaten North 99 angle. Would likely have provided stiffer opposition than Sydney but North had proven they were a strong side that season

North had the worst defence of the top-10 teams on the ladder. They weren't that good. Even their Grand Final performance against Carlton wasn't really that good and Carlton were just a mid-table side.

Essendon almost certainly beat North in 1999. Pagan admitted it himself. The Bombers had already beaten North twice, had not lost to ANY top-4 team all year, had no recent injuries and were in amazing form having won 14 out of 15 going into the Prelim.

A North win over Essendon on Grand Final day 1999 would have been a BIG upset. And there was NOTHNG about North Melbourne's reasonably average Grand Final performance that would indicate that they'd have gotten close to an injury-free Essendon team who had been flying in the second half the season.

 

[Gavin Excell]

North had the worst defence of the top-10 teams on the ladder. They weren't that good. Even their Grand Final performance against Carlton wasn't really that good and Carlton were just a mid-table side.

Essendon almost certainly beat North in 1999. Pagan admitted it himself. The Bombers had already beaten North twice, had not lost to ANY top-4 team all year, had no recent injuries and were in amazing form having won 14 out of 15 going into the Prelim.

A North win over Essendon on Grand Final day 1999 would have been a BIG upset. And there was NOTHNG about North Melbourne's reasonably average Grand Final performance that would indicate that they'd have gotten close to an injury-free Essendon team who had been flying in the second half the season.

Doesn't say much then for Essendon if you are dismissing the team that beat them in the prelim as a "mid table side"

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

North had the worst defence of the top-10 teams on the ladder. They weren't that good. Even their Grand Final performance against Carlton wasn't really that good and Carlton were just a mid-table side.

Essendon almost certainly beat North in 1999. Pagan admitted it himself. The Bombers had already beaten North twice, had not lost to ANY top-4 team all year, had no recent injuries and were in amazing form having won 14 out of 15 going into the Prelim.

A North win over Essendon on Grand Final day 1999 would have been a BIG upset. And there was NOTHNG about North Melbourne's reasonably average Grand Final performance that would indicate that they'd have gotten close to an injury-free Essendon team who had been flying in the second half the season.

I wouldn't have seen it as a big upset. While I do agree Bombers wojld have won, North were still a good chance. They had Carey and many others. They only lost one game less than you all season. I felt deep down they'd win it all season even if I was biased and not looking at things properly until later on.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Also two of your losses that year were against lowly Melbourne and St.kilda. You guys had that in you as we saw Prelim day. No question inaccuracy was a factor too. But Carlton did play well.

 

[Dan26]

Doesn't say much then for Essendon if you are dismissing the team that beat them in the prelim as a "mid table side"

What's that got to do with anything? Anyone can lose in an upset on the day. North Melbourne's 1999 side lost to11th placed Geelong and 8th-placed Sydney. It's about predicting on balance of probabilities what the most likely result would be. Brisbane in 2025 lost to 14th-placed Melbourne. And so what? On balance of probabilities, Brisbane beat Melbourne 9 times out of 10. Sometimes the 1 in 10 pops up. So what if they lose to a lower placed team occasionally? Who gives a shit?

The reality is that Essendon in 1999 was in amazing form (had won 14 of the last 15 going into the Prelim) had no recent injuries, had beaten North twice and had not lost to a top-4 team all year. North had Carey unfit, Anthony Stevens playing on a badly rolled ankle from the Prelim that was really a 6-week injury and frankly, they just weren't that impressive. Apart from Sydney in 2005 was there a less impressive Grand Final winning performance that North in 1999? I don't think so.

Essendon most likely win by 6-7 goals, given how shot North looked on Grand Final day.

If I was a bookmaker framing the odds after the Preliminary Finals, I'd have opened Essendon at $1.40 and I reckon they would have shortened to $1.33

In round 17 of 1999, Carey kicked 10 goals and North played out of their skin and still couldn't get within 4 goals of Essendon. And this was a North side who had a good day. It wasn't as if North had an off day. They played at their best, their best player played, maybe the best game of his stellar career and they STILL lost easily. No way do North beat Essendon in the 1999 Grand Final. No friggin way.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

What's that got to do with anything? Anyone can lose in an upset on the day. North Melbourne's 1999 side lost to11th placed Geelong and 8th-placed Sydney. It's about predicting on balance of probabilities what the most likely result would be. Brisbane in 2025 lost to 14th-placed Melbourne. And so what? On balance of probabilities, Brisbane beat Melbourne 9 times out of 10. Sometimes the 1 in 10 pops up. So what if they lose to a lower placed team occasionally? Who gives a shit?

The reality is that Essendon in 1999 was in amazing form (had won 14 of the last 15 going into the Prelim) had no recent injuries, had beaten North twice and had not lost to a top-4 team all year. North had Carey unfit, Anthony Stevens playing on a badly rolled ankle from the Prelim that was really a 6-week injury and frankly, they just weren't that impressive. Apart from Sydney in 2005 was there a less impressive Grand Final winning performance that North in 1999? I don't think so.

Essendon most likely win by 6-7 goals, given how shot North looked on Grand Final day.

If I was a bookmaker framing the odds after the Preliminary Finals, I'd have opened Essendon at $1.40 and I reckon they would have shortened to $1.33

In round 17 of 1999, Carey kicked 10 goals and North played out of their skin and still couldn't get within 4 goals of Essendon. And this was a North side who had a good day. It wasn't as if North had an off day. They played at their best, their best player played, maybe the best game of his stellar career and they STILL lost easily. No way do North beat Essendon in the 1999 Grand Final. No friggin way.

You also lost to saints and dees who were average and woeful in 99. It goes both ways.

 

[Dan26]

You also lost to saints and dees who were average and woeful in 99. It goes both ways.

Exactly. Which is my point. Sometimes good teams lose to average sides. The more relevant point is that Essendon didn't lose to a top-4 side in 1999. Carey kicked 10 in round 17 and his side still, lost by 26 points to Essendon. Heaven knows how the hell they would have won on Grand Final day had the two sides met. What would Carey (who was unfit anyway) have needed to do? Kick 12?

 

[Thrawn]

There is no way North was winning that match. Simply no way. They only won because they were playing Carlton.

People said this in '08 with Geelong, that there was "no way" Hawthorn could beat them. And look what happened.

You can't say with certainty who'd win had Essendon made it, too many variables.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

People said this in '08 with Geelong, that there was "no way" Hawthorn could beat them. And look what happened.

You can't say with certainty who'd win had Essendon made it, too many varvariables.

I had the hawks winning the flag from round 1 tbh. I always though the roos would win in 99 too. But I was biased. You raise a good point however.

 

[Hojuman]

Like to see them take on 1972 Carlton.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Like to see them take on 1972 Carlton.

Season record? Number of teams in the comp?

 

[Hojuman]

Season record? Number of teams in the comp?

W 18 L 3 D 1
12 teams, 22 h & a games.
But check out their G.F. team. Not many spuds in there.

 

[boncer34]

People said this in '08 with Geelong, that there was "no way" Hawthorn could beat them. And look what happened.

You can't say with certainty who'd win had Essendon made it, too many variables.

Agree with this.

I think its fair to say on the balance of probabilities we probably beat North.

But guaranteed?

Nah.

 

[blueboy25]

They had a good season, not much different to Carlton in 1995 who had to get past North with Carey and Geelong with Ablett in the finals to win the flag.

Essendon were lucky Kouta did his knee in rd 20 against them as he was the best player in the game at that stage.