Bombers 2000 vs Geelong 2007

[PhatBoy]

They went out in straight sets because they had no Judd, Kerr and cousins. Yet still drew with us going into extra time. We lost hyb5 points to the cats. Eagles could have got them. They were Geelongs bogey side.

That’s why we beat them by 7 goals. With two of the players you mentioned. Because they were our bogey side.

They even showed that in 2005 with Cousins, Kerr and Judd when they flogged us by minus 76 points, or 13 goals in the old language. That they were our bogey side. Because that’s what you do when you’re someone’s bogey side. You lose to them by 13 goals. True bogey side.

 

[DanA]

They went out in straight sets because they had no Judd, Kerr and cousins. Yet still drew with us going into extra time. We lost hyb5 points to the cats. Eagles could have got them. They were Geelongs bogey side.

There's no way of knowing but I don't think that was the prevailing view at the time. I think the bookies would have had Geelong heavy favourties.

 

[Bipolar Bear]

That Essendon team were so ruthless, savage and skillful, it's incredible how opposite the franchise is now.
Averaging 130 points a game. It was just the biggest "this is nobody else's season" ever, it was almost boring. Everyone was just waiting for next season, and for the salary cap to eat the team.


Also, was Dank at Geelong in 2007, or too early?

 

[Mr Meow]

That Essendon team were so ruthless, savage and skillful, it's incredible how opposite the franchise is now.
Averaging 130 points a game. It was just the biggest "this is nobody else's season" ever, it was almost boring. Everyone was just waiting for next season, and for the salary cap to eat the team.


Also, was Dank at Geelong in 2007, or too early?

The AFL joint investigation with ASADA fully and forensically investigated the Geelong Football Club, which included seizing all email, phone and computer records. The AFL is aware that Actovegin was purchased.

Actovegin is not a prohibited substance. The investigation found no evidence of any irregular supplement or injection program, and no evidence of any prohibited substances at the Geelong Football Club."

It was 2009 that this legal one off purchase of a supplement occurred anyway.

 

[Andyy]

On form at the time, Dons.

On talent over a sustained period, Cats.

I voted Cats because ultimately they delivered on the dynasty and I think the Dons under-achieved.

 

[Chip Scab1]

'93 remains sweet, incredibly lucky that year. Not sure how ,but it happened . Bit like North in '99, blues did your boys an almighty favour.

I disagree. You were cooked. One of the great misnomers of old-time football analysis.

Carlton actually robbed me of what would have been the greatest day of supporting my boys. I'll go to my death bed believing that!

Still don't think I'll ever see better Footy than Q1 of 1999 game. Lloydy was ridiculous and Carey was even better.

8-7 goals or something. You obviously had the umpires (as you always did) but would have been a good, possibly great game.

As for '93.. best year of footy ever except for you guys winning the flag. We belted you on a Friday Night (and Carlton too) that year.

 

[StillAtLarge]

The eagles won their first 6 games and then for the rest of the year, went 9-9. Judd still played 19 games, Kerr 17. Even if Cousins played more games I can't see them bothering the cats, who lost just 1 game after round 5, which was by 5 points on the siren. Cousins and Judd played in the final against Port, and the eagles still lost.

Judd's first 2 months was as good as anyone has ever played, then he did his groin and was never the same. Eagles had given the Cats a 10 goal start at Kardinia the year before and won... I think they would've gone in with plenty of confidence and comparatively little pressure (cats were attempting to break a 50 odd year gf curse).
I'm not sure who wins but it would've been an all time classic

 

[windyhill]

I disagree. You were cooked. One of the great misnomers of old-time football analysis.

Carlton actually robbed me of what would have been the greatest day of supporting my boys. I'll go to my death bed believing that!

Still don't think I'll ever see better Footy than Q1 of 1999 game. Lloydy was ridiculous and Carey was even better.

8-7 goals or something. You obviously had the umpires (as you always did) but would have been a good, possibly great game.

As for '93.. best year of footy ever except for you guys winning the flag. We belted you on a Friday Night (and Carlton too) that year.

99 no Lucas or golden boy hird. So under rated Lucas. Carey destroying us in that game (which happened regularly ) was insane quality.
That 99 prelim, the worst thing was the 3/4 time siren sounding. Essendon were absolutely turning it on and went to the huddle thinking “job done”
North made that Ess 2000 side, the rivalry at that time was magnificent.

 

[Chip Scab1]

99 no Lucas or golden boy hird. So under rated Lucas. Carey destroying us in that game (which happened regularly ) was insane quality.
That 99 prelim, the worst thing was the 3/4 time siren sounding. Essendon were absolutely turning it on and went to the huddle thinking “job done”
North made that Ess 2000 side, the rivalry at that time was magnificent.

All good points.

Our bottom 5 on that particular day were:

Mellington
Dhurkay
S.Anderson
A.Lange
S.Clayton

We were missing McCartney come GF Day, but got upgrades for 4 of these blokes.

 

[Cyber_punk]

Judd's first 2 months was as good as anyone has ever played, then he did his groin and was never the same. Eagles had given the Cats a 10 goal start at Kardinia the year before and won... I think they would've gone in with plenty of confidence and comparatively little pressure (cats were attempting to break a 50 odd year gf curse).
I'm not sure who wins but it would've been an all time classic

2006 Cats were not the 2007 Cats.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

2006 Cats were not the 2007 Cats.

You're missing the point. IF The Eagles had a fit Kerr, cousins and Judd things could have been different. Yes they may not have won but the potential was there to do so.

It's a what if.

 

[Cyber_punk]

You're missing the point. IF The Eagles had a fit Kerr, cousins and Judd things could have been different. Yes they may not have won but the potential was there to do so.

It's a what if.

Yes, it would have been different.


It's a competitive game for maybe 30 minutes more and Cats would have won by 60 instead of 119

 

[PhatBoy]

You're missing the point. IF The Eagles had a fit Kerr, cousins and Judd things could have been different. Yes they may not have won but the potential was there to do so.

It's a what if.

We had beaten a fit Kerr cousins and Judd already when we were the cats that got knocked out in the 2005 semi finals. It’s no more a what if than ‘what if we played better in 2008 and didn’t lose.’

We were a far far better side than the eagles in 2007 and would wiped our arse with them and pissed away the paper.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

We had beaten a fit Kerr cousins and Judd already when we were the cats that got knocked out in the 2005 semi finals. It’s no more a what if than ‘what if we played better in 2008 and didn’t lose.’

We were a far far better side than the eagles in 2007 and would wiped our arse with them and pissed away the paper.

You're bringing up 05 why not 06?


Case closed.

Edited - and they beat you without Judd in 06. From 9 goals down lol.

Double case closed.

 

[Mr Meow]

You're bringing up 05 why not 06?


Case closed.

Edited - and they beat you without Judd in 06. From 9 goals down lol.

Double case closed.

How can a what if be a case closed?

 

[Dan26]

On form at the time, Dons.

On talent over a sustained period, Cats.

I voted Cats because ultimately they delivered on the dynasty and I think the Dons under-achieved.

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.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

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.

This.

 

[windyhill]

Yes and no.
Terrific footballer but usually hit and miss, particularly come September action.
However, Lucas was an underrated mark. Get the ball in his direction in a one-on-one situation and he wins it 7 times out of 10.

Daniel Bradshaw is a player I would call underrated.

2 b&f's.
One chf.
One chb.

 

[Mr Meow]

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.

The data can show which team was more dominant relative to their opposition in a given season.

It can never answer who would win a hypothetical game between two sides from different eras.

 

[PhatBoy]

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.

The data shows that across the course of an entire season Essendon out performed Geelong. Essendon outperformed any team anyone alive has ever seen.

However after some early season staggers, over a 20 match sample size - pretty definitive data set you would have to say - the team they are being compared to, averaged a win by 51 points. Exactly the same as Essendon. We averaged 10 points less in attack, but 10 points less in defence. We lost one game after round five, same as Essendon. We had a close final. We also won two others by 223 points. A couple of losses early in the season doesn’t equate to ‘this team would beat this team if they met.’ If that’s the case then why do a lot of people rate Brisbane over Geelong?

 

[Dan26]

The data can show which team was more dominant relative to their opposition in a given season.

It can never answer who would win a hypothetical game between two sides from different eras.

Of course not, but there is nothing to suggest Geelong of 2007 was better than Essendon of 2000. The Bombers that season had a percentage versus the other 7 finalists of over 160% (Geelong 2007 was 140%), which is so astronomically off the charts, it essentially seals the debate before you even look at the other stats, all of which Essendon is superior to Geelong anyway.

 

[Mr Meow]

Of course not, but there is nothing to suggest Geelong of 2007 was better than Essendon of 2000. The Bombers that season had a percentage versus the other 7 finalists of over 160% (Geelong 2007 was 125%), which is so astronomically off the charts, it essentially seals the debate before you even look at the other stats, all of which Essendon is superior to Geelong anyway.

Again you are just quoting things that showed how they performed relative to a bunch of other teams in their separate seasons. We are not talking about who had the winningest season.

It seals the debate on nothing. In fact this is the exact type of debate where nothing can be proven - merely speculated on.

A player losing the least amount of tournament games and winning the Wimbledon final 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 does not mean they would automatically beat Djokovic from a given season where he had close matches against Nadal and Federer.

 

[brutus76]

If this was a free flowing shootout it'd be the Dons by plenty.

If this a defensive, stoppage, contested, low scoring game probably the Cats have the edge there and would win by a smallish margin

 

[Dan26]

The data shows that across the course of an entire season Essendon out performed Geelong. Essendon outperformed any team anyone alive has ever seen.

However after some early season staggers, over a 20 match sample size - pretty definitive data set you would have to say - the team they are being compared to, averaged a win by 51 points. Exactly the same as Essendon. We averaged 10 points less in attack, but 10 points less in defence. We lost one game after round five, same as Essendon. We had a close final. We also won two others by 223 points. A couple of losses early in the season doesn’t equate to ‘this team would beat this team if they met.’ If that’s the case then why do a lot of people rate Brisbane over Geelong?

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

 

[Mr Meow]

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

There is another interpretation, that the finalists that year were merely not that much stronger than the group below them. Or that Essendon coasted against some of the latter. There is zero data that says the 2007 finalists would identically match up against the 2000 batch. And that is nothing you could show with simple win/loss records either.