Bombers 2000 vs Geelong 2007

[PhatBoy]

Have a look at the numbers Essendon had versus the other 7 finalists (H&A and finals included)

Now have a look at numbers for Geelong of 2007 versus the other 7 finalists.

It's so off the charts, that it makes you look at Essendon in a whole new perspective. How good must a team be where they have the SAME percentage versus the non-finalists, as they did against the finalists? It indicates Essendon took it easy versus the worse teams, and could have been even more dominant had they wanted to.

It's almost insane having a percentage versus the other teams in the finals of 160%. Yes a handful of teams have had a percentage of over 160% over the whole season versus everybody combined. But to do it JUST against the other finalists?? That is insane

Im not disputing that. I’m not even arguing that we would beat you.

But have you thought about simply lining up the two teams against one another in peak form which they both were for large parts of that year?

 

[Mr Meow]

Im not disputing that. I’m not even arguing that we would beat you.

But have you thought about simply lining up the two teams against one another in peak form which they both were for large parts of that year?

NO.

Because what Essendon did was INSANE.

Case closed.

 

[Andyy]

The poll isn't asking you which club was better over a sustained period. In fact, the poll is very specific. Essendon 2000 vs Geelong 2007. Do we just answer polls now as to the question we want the poll to be asking instead of the actual question? Is that how this works now? Don't like the question, so change what the question is asking? Jesus Christ.

Champion Data (which started in 2000) rates the Dons of that year as the best team. They lost one game (which was a fluke loss) won 3 finals by a combined 230 points and won 24 matches. I rate Geelong of 2007 as a top-10 team of all time, but there is simply no statistical metric that they win compared to the Dons. Geelong lost 4 games, and nearly lost a final.

If you don't have data to back up your point, you're just some guy with an opinion.

Jeez, way to get sand in your vagina over 3 brief sentences.

If you go back and read the first one, specifically, it clearly says that I'm choosing Dons '00 on their form at the time (for a one-off game). The Cats are ultimately the 'winners' here though because of sustained success and they didn't shit the bed and go missing for whole generation afterwards. If you had a choice you'd take the 3 flags instead I'm sure.

This is a forum for discussion and I'm allowed an opinion without needing to refer to statistics/dick-measuring. I was alive at the time and watched both teams.



If you want statistics though here's one:

- Dons in '00 lead to 1 flag followed by 25 years of utterly piss-weak football, sustained board instability, and a systemic drug-cheating scandal unheard of in the history of the VFL/AFL of which they were found guilty by the highest sporting body on the planet, based of the sheer weight of evidence and probability, despite many fans failing to understand the court system and still wanting it to be treated as a murder scandal with 'beyond doubt' outcomes.

- Cats in '07 lead to 3 flags in a dynasty, followed by an ongoing period of sustained success and premiership contention, leaving them the envy of the competition and a destination club for many of the league's premium players.

 

[Dan26]

Jeez, way to get sand in your vagina over 3 brief sentences.

If you go back and read the first one, specifically, it clearly says that I'm choosing Dons '00 on their form at the time (for a one-off game). The Cats are ultimately the 'winners' here though because of sustained success and they didn't shit the bed and go missing for whole generation afterwards. If you had a choice you'd take the 3 flags instead I'm sure.

This is a forum for discussion and I'm allowed an opinion without needing to refer to statistics/dick-measuring. I was alive at the time and watched both teams.



If you want statistics though here's one:

- Dons in '00 lead to 1 flag followed by 25 years of utterly piss-weak football, sustained board instability, and a systemic drug-cheating scandal unheard of in the history of the VFL/AFL of which they were found guilty by the highest sporting body on the planet, based of the sheer weight of evidence and probability, despite many fans failing to understand the court system and still wanting it to be treated as a murder scandal with 'beyond doubt' outcomes.

- Cats in '07 lead to 3 flags in a dynasty, followed by an ongoing period of sustained success and premiership contention, leaving them the envy of the competition and a destination club for many of the league's premium players.

Wow, congratulations stupid. You initially answered a question with an "opinion" that had nothing to do with the question being asked, then doubled down and did it for a second time just to prove your utter stupidity as if it wasn't obvious the first time, simply because I correctly called you out on it. Not a single person (me included) would dispute that over a period of time, Geelong were more successful (as a club). That also has ZERO to do with the question being asked in this thread.

If you want to debate an opinion about how successful a particular club was in an era, go ahead and create a thread about it. The topic here was as specific as specific gets: Who was better? Essendon of 2000 or Geelong of 2007. That's it. It's as simple as that. If you feel the need to have an opinion about a question that wasn't asked, then that says more about your ability to understand year 7 comprehension than anything else.

 

[Donkers]

Essendon in 2000.

Not even close imo.

 

[Andyy]

Wow, congratulations stupid. You initially answered a question with an "opinion" that had nothing to do with the question being asked, then doubled down and did it for a second time just to prove your utter stupidity as if it wasn't obvious the first time, simply because I correctly called you out on it. Not a single person (me included) would dispute that over a period of time, Geelong were more successful (as a club). That also has ZERO to do with the question being asked in this thread.

If you want to debate an opinion about how successful a particular club was in an era, go ahead and create a thread about it. The topic here was as specific as specific gets: Who was better? Essendon of 2000 or Geelong of 2007. That's it. It's as simple as that. If you feel the need to have an opinion about a question that wasn't asked, then that says more about your ability to understand year 7 comprehension than anything else.

Oooo, you called me out for having an opinion.

Glad you've had a big win today kiddo.

Sorry it all went over your bummer head.

Go have a cold shower.

 

[Sttew]

Bombers had a brilliant 2000, but couldn't replicate that form again which makes you think 2000 was a fluke.

 

[Chip Scab1]

Bombers had a brilliant 2000, but couldn't replicate that form again which makes you think 2000 was a fluke.

Looking back, they had the Marshmallow Game in the finals in 1998 against Norf and then the following year's PreLim against the Baggers. If that Club were to have a pulse it was going to result in a crazy good 2000 (which it did). They somehow managed to keep Lloydy, Hird, Mercs, Fletcher, Misiti, Longy, Solomon and others under a bulging cap.