Carlton 1995 Vs Essendon 2000

[Dan26]

Dan,

that's ridiculous. and furthermore, I am sure deep down you know it is too.

Hahaha. Deep down I know it do I? Buddy, Essendon went 24-1 with a percentage of 160%. It's not half obvious they were better than Carlton of '95. Duh! Seriously, one side had a percentage of 137% (which happens just about every year) the other had a percentage of 160%, whcih is like a "once in 50 years"
number.

Dan,
Those statistics don't even promise to give the illusions of anything conclusive.

They prove Essendon was better. Look at them. Statistically an identical defence to Carlton of '95, yet an attack that scored 4 goals more per game than Carlton of '95, won more games, and had an average losing margin of 50 points less. Did I mention the pre-season cup (5-0) taking the tally to a remarkable 29-1.

Yes, 29-1. I know that's hard to believe so I'll say it again. 29-1.

Dan,
If you look at the matchup's you can see all time greats against decent well drilled but ultimately players who will be forgotten by the annals of time.

I don't give a f*** about comparing match-ups. Football is a team game. Are you aware of that? Great teams are great because of how they play together - not because how how they "look on paper." Who cares how a team looks on paper? I don't. It's how they play. Carlton looked just as good on paper in '96 and what happened? Carlton of '95 was a great team, but the facts are that Essendon of 2000 won more games, had a better record, a better percentage, and was better in virtually every possible measurable category.

That can't be disputed, and it's insulting to the great Essendon team of 2000 to rate Carlton of '95 as better, as it simply makes no sense. What are you basing it on? On paper? LOL. Teams are judged by HOW THEY PLAY, not how they look on a sheet of A4, you dill.

Let's suppose before 2000 started, that if Essendon played to a certain pre-determined level, that you would rate them as better than Carlton of '95. What would that level be? What would they need to have done? Was 24-1 160% not good enough? Would only a 25-0, 170% season have sufficed?

What was the pre-determined level they "should" have achieved in order for you to think they were better?

Don't make me post the numbers again.

 

[Crow-mo]

Dan,

you can keep repeating it, but it doesn't become true.

Hahaha. Deep down I know it do I? Buddy, Essendon went 24-1 with a percentage of 160%. It's not half obvious they were better than Carlton of '95. Duh! Seriously, one side had a percentage of 137% (which happens just about every year) the other had a percentage of 160%, whcih is like a "once in 50 years"
number.

this refers to the quality of opposition as well, you do realise that?
but who said percentage was the standard bearer, you wouldn't have beaten hafl the 1980's premiers, but your percentage was better. Maybe you think 2000 was better than 1985? ho ho, stop it.

They prove Essendon was better. Look at them. Statistically an identical defence to Carlton of '95, yet an attack that scored 4 goals more per game than Carlton of '95, won more games, and had an average losing margin of 50 points less. Did I mention the pre-season cup (5-0) taking the tally to a remarkable 29-1.

umm. you have a strange view of proof. statistics don't prove much, and the ones you chose are mostly meaningless. no matter how many times you jump up and down, hold your breath, and stamp.

go on, do it again. please, make me laugh.

Yes, 29-1. I know that's hard to believe so I'll say it again. 29-1.

and? how does that make any reference to the quality of the football?

oh wait it doesn't

I don't give a f*** about comparing match-ups. Football is a team game. Are you aware of that? Great teams are great because of how they play together

- not because how how they "look on paper." Who cares how a team looks on paper? I don't.

well Dan, perhaps you are only looking on paper. I watched both seasons, are you saying you didn't?

Really what you're saying is that I can't dispute the obvious, so I want to bring in nebullous statistics that prove my narrow view - irrespective on whether they actually do that or not.

It's how they play. Carlton looked just as good on paper in '96 and what happened?

about the same as 1999? Mind you, I am surprised your paper analysis didn't turn up the injuries.

Carlton of '95 was a great team, but the facts are that Essendon of 2000 won more games, had a better record, a better percentage, and was better in virtually every possible measurable category.

again, you seem to struggle with what is fact? how you believe your team played together to overcome the obvious personnel deficiencies in comparison is fact? what a silly lad.

That can't be disputed, and it's insulting to the great Essendon team of 2000 to rate Carlton of '95 as better, as it simply makes no sense.

well maybe not to someone whose head is stuck in the sand? what you think is indisputable is again, childish and naive. they had better players all over the ground, and frankly that counts for a lot.

What are you basing it on? On paper? LOL. Teams are judged by HOW THEY PLAY, not how they look on a sheet of A4, you dill.

well Dan, how is your sense of irony. tell me again about the facts on how they play, I'd be keen to hear how this can ever be a fact?
maybe you can continue on about how this proves they were better despite having manifestly lower quality on every line - oh and maybe you could bring up the percentage again?

Let's suppose before 2000 started, that if Essendon played to a certain pre-determined level, that you would rate them as better than Carlton of '95. What would that level be? What would they need to have done? Was 24-1 160% not good enough? Would only a 25-0, 170% season have sufficed?

Essendon of 2000 does not have the ability to better than that team, it is not capable of being better than Hawthorn 1998, Essendon 1985, Carlton 1987 etc etc. you don't have the cattle, you are not even in the race. which is why your statement "what would they need to have done" is so revealing. for you, it's clear you need to believe this is true, so you want to know what would make them better than Carlton 1995? Well, lets start with better players and go from there


Guess what? Talent is being diluted every year, and it's getting harder for a team now to amass the talent that teams in the 1990's had. St Kilda could go undefeated this season, and it wouldn't make any difference, they wouldn't be the best side either.

Now go cry into your coco pops and let the grown ups talk.

 

[Dan26]

Dan,
this refers to the quality of opposition as well, you do realise that?

Standard of opposition is virtually identical every year. There are about 640 players in the AFL. As long as participation level and grassroots remain strong, there is no reason to suggest the talent level of the AFL will be any different year to year in the 16 team comp. Why would the combined talent of 640 players be any different in 1995 to 1996, or 1997 or 2000? Essendon's percentage of 160% was achieved agaisnt the entire league not just one team.

Dan,

2000 was better than 1985? ho ho, stop it.

The 2000 team was the best team to have ever played the game in my opinion. No team has ever gone 29-1 in competitive matches with a percentage over 160%. Percentage isn't the only indicator of quality. What percentage does do however is show how much a team scores relative to the opposition. Hence, it is one of the best indicators of quality. As are wins, scoring ability, but as you know Essendon beats Carlton of '95 in these aspects too.

umm. you have a strange view of proof. statistics don't prove much, and the ones you chose are mostly meaningless. no matter how many times you jump up and down, hold your breath, and stamp.

So if the stats don't support YOUR argument you dismiss them. The stats show Essendon wins more games had a FOUR GOAL better percentage, and was superior in every measurable way. And all this in a league identical in quality to every other year in the modern era (unless you can somehow prove that the 640 players in the AFL in 2000 magically were worse than other years, LOL!)

well Dan, perhaps you are only looking on paper. I watched both seasons, are you saying you didn't?

You see I live in the real word, where team are judged by what they do on the field, not how they look on paper. I watched both seasons too, and aside from Essendon playing to a higher quality, they won matches by bigger margins, and were superior statistically in virtually every category.

Oh, but I forgot, in YOUIR opinion Carlton "look" better on paper. Obviously how a team looks on paper is more important than how they perform on the field in Crow-Mo's fantasy land.

Really what you're saying is that I can't dispute the obvious, so I want to bring in nebullous statistics that prove my narrow view - irrespective on whether they actually do that or not.

What are you crapping on about now? You don't like factual numbers being used to support a case?

about the same as 1999? Mind you, I am surprised your paper analysis didn't turn up the injuries.

What has '99 got to do with how the 'Dons were in 2000? 1996 has nothing to do with how good the Blues were in 1995. The point (which you missed) was that looking good on paper in one season means nothing - its how you perform, and Essendon's performances were undisputedly superior. You can't dispute that - they won more games by bigger margins, more convincingly.

well Dan, how is your sense of irony. tell me again about the facts on how they play, I'd be keen to hear how this can ever be a fact?
maybe you can continue on about how this proves they were better despite having manifestly lower quality on every line

Lower quality on every line? Essendon of 2000, (on paper) was one of the best teams ever, but who cares about on paper? I don't give a flying f***. "On paper" analysis is totally subjective. Nothing can be proven "on paper." You can't prove one team was better on paper than the other because that is totally opinion based. Sporting teams prove their greatness on the field where they ply their trade, and the results they achieve will detemined their greatness. Essendon's results in 2000 were better thnan Carltons of 1995, that is a fact. They won more games, by bigger margins, more convincingly.

oh and maybe you could bring up the percentage again?

Love to. Essendon 160%, Carlton 137%. Four goals difference. Thankyou for the opportunity.

Essendon of 2000 does not have the ability to better than that team, it is not capable of being better than Hawthorn 1998, Essendon 1985, Carlton 1987 etc etc. you don't have the cattle, you are not even in the race.

ANY team, if they play to a certain level of ability could theroetically be the best of all time. In 2000, the competition was the same standard as any other year (as I said earlier there are 640 players and there is no logical reason to suggest those 640 players were better or worse than any other year) and one team went 29-1, 160%.

You knew before that season, that Essendon, if they played to a certain level, could be better than Carlton. What was the level? You can't say "they don't have the ability" because A.) Any team could do it if their players played to a high quality, in theory. Even a wooden spoon team the year before could be the best ever if all their players showed 200% improvement hypothetically. ANY team could play to that quality, because you don't know how much the players are going to improve. And B.) Statistically Essendon was better, so saying they don't have the ability or don't have the cattle is clearly a stupid exaggeration, designed to antagonize. To say they don't have the ability or the cattle after amassing more wins, with a better percentage in a comp the same standard as '95 is a comment that frankly makes you look dumb. At the end of the day they amassed a superior record in an identical standard competition.

The numbers speaks for themselves - they will stand for all time. Looks like the poll disagrees with you - as do the raw figures.

 

[doppleganger]

ok, I think we realise we agree probably 95% of the way, and it's only semantics. but still

spot on!!

ok, maybe to some extent. However lets not forget that Sticks played only 17 games, and Lloyd 25. He was still very productive until about 1997. I could mention leadership but that would be too easy

Lloyds stats aren't as conclusive as you make out. he averaged 1 more shot at goal a game from FF, the same marks, and a couple of possessions more.

but the point you ignore, is that Sticks wasn't the FF, and Essendon don't have a matchup for him. Pearce is the comparator to Lloyd - and he
did more in his GF!

Carlton's Forward lines two main targets were Sticks & Pearce
support from Spalding, Clape & Diesel

Essendon's forward lines two main target were Lloyd & Lucas
support from Hird, Caracella, Alessio & Mercuri

Lloyd had a 100+ season, must agree that Sticks was the main forward target at carlton, and as such didn't have a good a year as Lloyd who was the main target at essendon!

um. why do you think getting 40 touches means you hurt the opposition? 4 golas is nice granted, but that's one game. seeing as kicked 14 for the year, that's 10 left from 24 games. not much of a threat there.

as for the bradley comparison, this is like comparing Brad Miller and Carey. the class gulf is terrifying. Bradley had one of his BEST years in 1995, why do you think otherwise? Not to mention the impact of being a more direct player, who carried the football abd broke lines.

You said Misiti couldn't hurt the opposition, yes is hard to compare as Bradley very outside, but Misiti did kick more goals for the season even tho he is more of an inside player

Bradley was down on average stats, but still came runner up in b&f so the people who matter rated his year, but think ur selling smokin joes year short

equal then!!

again, not sure what you're basing that on? Bradley had yet another great season in 1995, at the higher end of his achievements as well. Misiti may not have been better than in 2000, but that doesn't mean he was better than an alltime great in full flight.

Bradley absolute champion over entire career, but its only based on the one season

Misiti had a brilliant year in 2000, will rank them even

disagree, it goes to show quality. Pearce was ruined by injury, his 1996 was as good as 1995, to the extent he got on the park.

to be fair many of the essendon players u listed were also ruined by injury

can't agree. Diesel was still going strong and impossible to match up on - with Ratten now firmly established in the middle (yet another, great great player) he rotated forward and in the centre. Sticks and Bradley both had very fine years, and Madden wasn't done just yet - certainly above John - hee hee Barnes. If you want to talk washed up, we should start there

Diesel, Sticks & Madden were champions who eeeked out the final really good year, but still not up with their prime is what i meant

true, it is only semantics. You look at the players, the matchups, the quality of the opposition (does anyone think Melbourne in 2000 would get within 10 goals of 1995 Geelong?), and there is only one conclusion.

yep carlton had easily the better team on paper......easily

but teams that look good on paper dont always win

a champion team will beat a team of champions....unless that team of champions is really really good!!!

 

[Crow-mo]

whhhaaaaah, whaaaah.

I'll mock you some more tomorrow when I have more time.

Mind you, I did get a laugh when you said the standard of competition is always the same. an all time clutching of straws rating

 

[Crow-mo]

a champion team will beat a team of champions....unless that team of champions is really really good!!!

lol.. worth remembering that a champion team is only a term used to describe a result that made no sense on the day.

A champion player is a champion because he beats the scrubber 19 times out of 20. If it went any other way, the roles would be reversed.

 

[Dan26]

I'll mock you some more tomorrow when I have more time.

Mind you, I did get a laugh when you said the standard of competition is always the same. an all time clutching of straws rating

Not as much of a laugh as I did when you brought up Carlton of 1987.

In the current 16 team league there is NO reason to suggest that the standard of the 640 players from year to year is any different. Prove to me that it changes, to any great extent. Prove it. As long as grassroots and participations levels at lower rungs reaming the same the standard of the 640 players from year to year will always be about the same, and you know that as well as I do.

Essendon of 2000 had more wins, more often, more convincingly in a league identical in standard to 1995. They were better. Want me to post the numbers again? You hate that don't you.

If you keep on repeating that Carlton of 1995 were better despite having nothing logical to base it on, maybe you'll eventaully believe it. Maybe I can get you a tape of their round 8 and 9 performances that year to help you meditate.

 

[doppleganger]

The 2000 team was the best team to have ever played the game in my opinion. No team has ever gone 29-1 in competitive matches with a percentage over 160%. Percentage isn't the only indicator of quality. What percentage does do however is show how much a team scores relative to the opposition. Hence, it is one of the best indicators of quality. As are wins, scoring ability, but as you know Essendon beats Carlton of '95 in these aspects too.

since when did the wizzer cup become competitive???
not competitive at all im sorry

What has '99 got to do with how the 'Dons were in 2000? 1996 has nothing to do with how good the Blues were in 1995. The point (which you missed) was that looking good on paper in one season means nothing - its how you perform, and Essendon's performances were undisputedly superior. You can't dispute that - they won more games by bigger margins, more convincingly.

99 has everything to do with the performance in 00, do u think that if essendon had won the flag in 99 that the desire would have been as strong to perform in such a ruthless manner??

Lower quality on every line? Essendon of 2000, (on paper) was one of the best teams ever, but who cares about on paper? I don't give a flying f***. "On paper" analysis is totally subjective. Nothing can be proven "on paper." You can't prove one team was better on paper than the other because that is totally opinion based. Sporting teams prove their greatness on the field where they ply their trade, and the results they achieve will detemined their greatness. Essendon's results in 2000 were better thnan Carltons of 1995, that is a fact. They won more games, by bigger margins, more convincingly.

yes lower quality on most lines, except HF!!
more convincingly?? it seems that carlton didn't have the same desire as essendon,(perhaps this is where 99 comes in!?) if you look at ur stats carlton had better 1st & 3rd quarter records then essendon....but would then just take the foot off the gas

essendon always came home strong after getting a rev from sheedy but carlton didn't need this as they performed better earlier in games in the premiership quarter, perhaps because carltons older players eased up?? or maybe because essendon were playing inside on perfect grounds every week??

 

[Crow-mo]

PS dan,

give me a headstart, tell me who your best 10 on the park where in 2000?

 

[Crow-mo]

Not as much of a laugh as I did when you brought up Carlton of 1987.

go ahead.

In the current 16 team league there is NO reason to suggest that the standard of the 640 players from year to year is any different. Prove to me that it changes, to any great extent. Prove it. As long as grassroots and participations levels at lower rungs reaming the same the standard of the 640 players from year to year will always be about the same, and you know that as well as I do.

geez you're a laugh. why do you ignore the distribution of players?
as they are spread thinner, the quality of individual team diminishes. you're the first person to ever dispute that. well done.

Essendon of 2000 had more wins, more often, more convincingly in a league identical in standard to 1995. They were better. Want me to post the numbers again? You hate that don't you.

why would I be worried by meaningless numbers? the leagues weren't the same, if they were you wouldn't tug on about on paper superiority.

btw do you believe the team with the highest % should be given the flag?

If you keep on repeating that Carlton of 1995 were better despite having nothing logical to base it on, maybe you'll eventaully believe it. Maybe I can get you a tape of their round 8 and 9 performances that year to help you meditate.

nothing logical, far superior playing talent comes to mind? not even close

anyway, I just popped back to ask for your top 10 list.

 

[Crow-mo]

Bradley absolute champion over entire career, but its only based on the one season

Misiti had a brilliant year in 2000, will rank them even

just checked Bradley was all australian in 1995, Misiti was not in 2000

Diesel, Sticks & Madden were champions who eeeked out the final really good year, but still not up with their prime is what i meant

well 65 odd goals from sticks, a Norm Smith for Diesel, and 1995 All Australian Ruckman for Madden. Not entirely put out to pasture

 

[Longy413]

ok, maybe to some extent. However lets not forget that Sticks played only 17 games, and Lloyd 25. He was still very productive until about 1997. I could mention leadership but that would be too easy

Lloyds stats aren't as conclusive as you make out. he averaged 1 more shot at goal a game from FF, the same marks, and a couple of possessions more.

but the point you ignore, is that Sticks wasn't the FF, and Essendon don't have a matchup for him. Pearce is the comparator to Lloyd - and he
did more in his GF!

Lloyd was and is a fantastic leader. He wasn't captain in 2000 but was very much a leader and driving force for our season.

In a season were our midfield ran all over the top of every side, Lloyd was our leading kick getter for the season. That's some accomplishment for a FF. He did more than kick goals.

As for match-ups, Fletcher would have played on Kernahan. Fletcher was AA Full-back that year and won our best and fairest. Solomon would have played on Pearce. Big finals player Dean Solomon, remember his jobs on Richardson and Ottens?

And Lloyd aside, we had 8 players who averaged a goal or more per game.

um. why do you think getting 40 touches means you hurt the opposition? 4 golas is nice granted, but that's one game. seeing as kicked 14 for the year, that's 10 left from 24 games. not much of a threat there.

Seriously mate, if you don't believe Joe Misiti hurt the opposition, then you really need to go back and watch some footy. He didn't hurt the opposition like Chris Judd does, but he hurt them because he got our other players into the game. Joe Misiti had a stigma about him that he wasted possessions because 3 or 4 times a game he would be seen getting rushed kicks out of packs, but with a fraction of time and space he was one of the best users of the footy in our side. He controlled our midfield, he got us moving and he was so smart by hand. Kicked big goals. We wouldn't have been half the side we were without Joe. His 2000 was incredible. He was our version of Simon Black circa 2003.

as for the bradley comparison, this is like comparing Brad Miller and Carey. the class gulf is terrifying. Bradley had one of his BEST years in 1995, why do you think otherwise? Not to mention the impact of being a more direct player, who carried the football abd broke lines.

Joe Misiti created space for his team-mates. If you get a chance to see an Essendon game from that year, watch the way Joe will win the ball in close (something Bradley never did) and make things open up around him. He was magic at it.

disagree, it goes to show quality. Pearce was ruined by injury, his 1996 was as good as 1995, to the extent he got on the park.

Why are you not affording the same excuses to Blumfield, Heffernan, Mercuri, Caracella?

Players you said were ordinary players in a good side.
Yet Blumfield was our best finals player. Played for Australia and was then ravaged by groin, hamstring and knee injuries.
Heffernan was our number 1 defensive midfielder, had a good season and was hurt by a knee injury before he was traded away.
Mercuri never recovered from groin injury, he was actually at his best in 1999. The death of his brother then ruined him.
Caracella had a good year in 2005 in a terrible side, he's a bloody good football in a good side or a poor side.

Don't make excuses for one and not the rest.

can't agree. Diesel was still going strong and impossible to match up on - with Ratten now firmly established in the middle (yet another, great great player) he rotated forward and in the centre. Sticks and Bradley both had very fine years, and Madden wasn't done just yet - certainly above John - hee hee Barnes. If you want to talk washed up, we should start there

Diesel would have been tough to stop. I dare say Heffernan would have been given the job. Ratten and Jason Johnson would have gone head to head. And again, if you are going to laugh at the job Barnes did in 2000 you need to watch more footy. He would have carved Madden around the ground, just like he did in the 1995 GF when Madden was at his peak. Barnes was just about Geelong's best player.

You look at the players, the matchups, the quality of the opposition (does anyone think Melbourne in 2000 would get within 10 goals of 1995 Geelong?), and there is only one conclusion.

We didn't play the second best side in the Grand Final. Carlton of 2000 would have got pretty bloody close to Geelong of 1995. The Kangaroos won 14 games in 2000 and finished 4th, we beat them by 125 points. They were still a very good side with plenty of weapons. But regardless of their quality, we made good sides look bad.

 

[mustapha]

Joe Misiti was an in and under player. Bradley was an outside player with more pace. Why are they being compared? I think that Essendon would win because Bewick was quicker than Williams. Lloyd was a lot stronger in the air than Matthew Hogg ever was.

 

[mustapha]

In every statistic Essendon comes out on top. The only justification for Carlton being a better side is a subjective analysis of the playing squads or a subjective analysis of the relative strenth of other sides in that year.

I also fail to see how winning against the 2000 Melbourne side in a grand final was so much easier than winning against the 1995 Geelong side. Geelong failed to show up in the 92 and 94 grand finals and they were shocking in the 95 grand final. They had a very poor record on the big day.

 

[windyhill]

Why?

the way the "full back of last century" silvagni carried on , absolute gold.

 

[Dan26]

go ahead.



geez you're a laugh. why do you ignore the distribution of players?
as they are spread thinner, the quality of individual team diminishes. you're the first person to ever dispute that. well done.

Oh mY god, you are SOOOOOO stupid. Of course the distribution of the talent amongst the 16 clubs is different from year to year. But the talent level combined of all the 16 teams will always be identical (give ot take random variation). And when Essendon won the flag in 2000, they didn't do it against just one team - they did it against 15 teams. The talent they had to play week in week out over 22 weeks was no different to any other year since the 16 team league started in 1995. They also beat all 15 opponents. Carlton beat 13 or the 15.

That is exactly why I brought up Essendoin superior win-loss record (24-1, which is 29-1 if you include pre-season, compared to Carlton's 24-3) AND Essendon's percentage of 160%. Essendon's percentage in 2000 was achieved against the entire league. Some opponents are strong some are weak, but the overall talent amongst the whole league was exactly the same as 1995, when you combine all 640 players together, and this percentage of 160% was done against EVERYONE.

Essendon won more often and more convingingly, in a league identical in quality to any 16 team AFL season since 1995.

nothing logical, far superior playing talent comes to mind? not even close

Looking at Essendon's awesome team on paper, that's debatable, but who cares how it looks on paper, anyway? How many times do you need to be told that fact? I mean, seriously are you stupid? It doesn't matter how a team looks on paper or how good their "top 10 stars are." You obviously are totally unaware that football is a team game. Thank God your coach Neil Craig understand this because you sure don't.

All that matters is the results. You hear that? The results! Essendon's results were better. Achieved in a league of identical quality to 1995. Victorious against ALL 15 opponents too. With a percentage 23% better too! With more wins too. And a more dominant record in the finals too. And a forward line that scored 4 more goals per game too.

Essendon was obviously better. By every possible measurable category. You know it as well as I do.

 

[Jex]

just checked Bradley was all australian in 1995, Misiti was not in 2000

Says alot about the strength of the competition in 2000 compared with 1995

 

[Crow-mo]

Says alot about the strength of the competition in 2000 compared with 1995

yep, damn those all time greats and their free rides

 

[don vito of fitzroy]

Carlton 1995 is the best out the two. They had better players. Essendon wished that they had a midfielder like Williams, Kernahan was a forward of real skill and he didn't need to toss grass into the air. Lloyd is more of an opportunist.

 

[Crow-mo]

Lloyd was and is a fantastic leader.

please. try to be serious.

In a season were our midfield ran all over the top of every side, Lloyd was our leading kick getter for the season. That's some accomplishment for a FF. He did more than kick goals.

though not against an aging Silvagni I note.

As for match-ups, Fletcher would have played on Kernahan. Fletcher was AA Full-back that year and won our best and fairest.

even away from the goal square
I think Carlton would be very happy with that matchup nonetheless.

Solomon would have played on Pearce. Big finals player Dean Solomon, remember his jobs on Richardson and Ottens?

yes those big time studs Richardson and Ottens. lol. please try and be serious. Solomon's too slow for Pearce. Cue banal then you haven't watched solomon enough comments...

And Lloyd aside, we had 8 players who averaged a goal or more per game.

and plenty from your midfield who would be slaughtered by this lot. Guys like Caracella and Blumfield...

Seriously mate, if you don't believe Joe Misiti hurt the opposition, then you really need to go back and watch some footy. He didn't hurt the opposition like Chris Judd does, but he hurt them because he got our other players into the game. Joe Misiti had a stigma about him that he wasted possessions because 3 or 4 times a game he would be seen getting rushed kicks out of packs, but with a fraction of time and space he was one of the best users of the footy in our side. He controlled our midfield, he got us moving and he was so smart by hand. Kicked big goals. We wouldn't have been half the side we were without Joe. His 2000 was incredible. He was our version of Simon Black circa 2003.

well you're right about one thing, he does have a stigma. the entire footy world, except a handful of essendon supporters, sees it. His 2000 was so incredible he didn't even make the all australian side. meh.

Joe Misiti created space for his team-mates. If you get a chance to see an Essendon game from that year, watch the way Joe will win the ball in close (something Bradley never did) and make things open up around him. He was magic at it.

yes you're right. Misiti is an absolute champion, and the great carlton midfielders would fear him. a sum total of zero AA guernseys isn't it?

geez if he's the guy you're pinning your hopes on. gosh.

Why are you not affording the same excuses to Blumfield, Heffernan, Mercuri, Caracella?

do scrubbers get excuses made for them? there's a difference between being savaged by injury and being exposed as a dud. That said, I have a bit of time for Mercuri, I think he's a bit better than that - but the others I have whole sackful of meh for them.

Players you said were ordinary players in a good side.
Yet Blumfield was our best finals player. Played for Australia and was then ravaged by groin, hamstring and knee injuries.

hack.

Heffernan was our number 1 defensive midfielder, had a good season and was hurt by a knee injury before he was traded away.

my point entirely. if he's your no.1 defensive midfielder. good golly.
hack.

Mercuri never recovered from groin injury, he was actually at his best in 1999. The death of his brother then ruined him.

I agree, I think Mercuri is a class about these other bozo's. he's the proper example of the point I am trying to make, genuinely good players cut down. Not duds exposed.

Caracella had a good year in 2005 in a terrible side, he's a bloody good football in a good side or a poor side.

c'mon. so's aaron keating. ok, maybe a bit harsh.

Don't make excuses for one and not the rest.

I think i've made point very clear on this.

Diesel would have been tough to stop. I dare say Heffernan would have been given the job.

reigning Brownlow Medallist, AA Captain, AFLPA MVP - yes, he might have been a handful.

Ratten and Jason Johnson would have gone head to head. And again, if you are going to laugh at the job Barnes did in 2000 you need to watch more footy.

I was wrong, you used this before the dean solomon comment. how predictable

Barnesy wasn't a bad player in his prime, but your just clutching at straws. you claimed him off the scrap heap because you had nothing else. Madden was AA over him 1995, when he was in his prime - how the **** is 200 Barnesy better than him. your 2 bit bias is tiresome. I am not even a carlton supporter, and these claims are still offensive.

I Liked JJ as a player, still do, but against Ratten - different class.

He would have carved Madden around the ground, just like he did in the 1995 GF when Madden was at his peak. Barnes was just about Geelong's best player.

yes, those bionic implants would have served him well. mind you I don't recall Barnes game much from the granny, but his stats are no better than Maddens in that game.

look Harry was AA ruckman and a better player in 1995, only a moron would suggest that 2000 scrapheap challenge John Barnes was better than 1995 Madden.

We didn't play the second best side in the Grand Final. Carlton of 2000 would have got pretty bloody close to Geelong of 1995. The Kangaroos won 14 games in 2000 and finished 4th, we beat them by 125 points. They were still a very good side with plenty of weapons. But regardless of their quality, we made good sides look bad.

meh. I am not sure what beating the kangaroos has to do with anything.

the other idiot keeps suggesting that percentage is some all conquering indicator - so I am just waiting for him to declare the Crows the 2005 premiers by default. We had the highest percentage, finished top, had the biggest winning margin in the finals, and the lowest of all free kicks to boot

Mind you a sensible person might realise that this doesn't mean very much.

 

[Crow-mo]

Joe Misiti was an in and under player. Bradley was an outside player with more pace. Why are they being compared? I think that Essendon would win because Bewick was quicker than Williams. Lloyd was a lot stronger in the air than Matthew Hogg ever was.

you were 12 in 1995, you don't have a clue.

 

[Blues_Man]

Well done Cro-Mo ...you have done your bit to try and educate these delusional Bomber fans ...wether they wake up and smell the coffee and realise you are 100 percent correct is another matter though . Most knowledgable football pundits would agree that while the 2000 bombers were a very good team , the 1995 Carlton side were simply awesome and a class above with stars all over the field

 

[Crow-mo]

Oh mY god, you are SOOOOOO stupid. Of course the distribution of the talent amongst the 16 clubs is different from year to year. But the talent level combined of all the 16 teams will always be identical (give ot take random variation). And when Essendon won the flag in 2000, they didn't do it against just one team - they did it against 15 teams. The talent they had to play week in week out over 22 weeks was no different to any other year since the 16 team league started in 1995. They also beat all 15 opponents. Carlton beat 13 or the 15.

whoosh straight over your deluded and bias head. i can't decide if you are genuinely stupid, or just less clever than you think. So you admit that the talent is spread thinner but the level of competition is that same. you do realise than when you say the earth is flat, it means that it can't be round also?

That is exactly why I brought up Essendoin superior win-loss record (24-1, which is 29-1 if you include pre-season, compared to Carlton's 24-3) AND Essendon's percentage of 160%. Essendon's percentage in 2000 was achieved against the entire league.

no you brought it up because you are struggling for any meaningful way of arguing your case. no other reason. I am still waiting for your reasons why 1987 Carlton weren't a good side, it seems Essendon fans have a very good memory of the premiers when they were aged 12. must be a pyschic connection.

Some opponents are strong some are weak, but the overall talent amongst the whole league was exactly the same as 1995,

so freaking what?
you beat weaker opposition by your own admission - if say a team has 1/16 of the talent or maybe one has 3/8 of the talent - which one is better? Now if you want argue relative achievement, you might get further. But you got some wacked out idea, that your team with it's dream injury run was a better absolute side.

when you combine all 640 players together, and this percentage of 160% was done against EVERYONE.

really I thought some guys sat it out for you, played the sugar plum fairy on a HBF?

it's plain as day you don't even know how to argue what you emotively want to believe - just that you know you do.

Essendon won more often and more convingingly, in a league identical in quality to any 16 team AFL season since 1995.

even if you were right - you aren't - but even if you did, so ****ing what? do you believe the premiership should be given to the team with the highest %? I'll tell the boys down at AAMI you're bringing in the cup from Sydney. wait, everyone else realises this is not an especially meaningful stat - except you? hmmm... maybe this is all starting to make sense.
cue the threat to print the same meaningless stats that absolutely, positively cannot be refuted. only this time Dan, can you rub your tummy, pat your head, hop on one leg, and screech like a monkey?

Looking at Essendon's awesome team on paper,

lol. your awesome team on paper - it did make me smile. thanks.

that's debatable, but who cares how it looks on paper, anyway?

may I suggest upping your lithium dose? your family will thank you.

How many times do you need to be told that fact?

um. I can tell you again about your view of what is fact and what is not. but then you might start frothing at the mouth, mutter something about "on paper" and climb your garage screaming I am tarzan.

so lets just say, you're special and I don't agree your facts and their purported meaning.

I mean, seriously are you stupid? It doesn't matter how a team looks on paper or how good their "top 10 stars are." You obviously are totally unaware that football is a team game.

there we are. that's nice isn't, and effortless 3rd mention of "on paper" from Dan. Folks he's in good form today. is that his special friend coming to take him home?

I think most people appreciate that better players contribute to better performance. I know both Leigh Matthews and Alan Jeans always believed win the match up and win the game. but hey

"Box Hill are the best team in the country, I don't care how it looks on paper, they are the best team. they will beat anyone." - did I miss anything Dan?

Thank God your coach Neil Craig understand this because you sure don't.

Has your God robbed you of the divine gift of syntax?

All that matters is the results. You hear that? The results! Essendon's results were better.

well they look pretty similar to me, achieved with an inferior roster of players. do I hear Box Hill asking for a re-match with the murumbidgee thirds?

Achieved in a league of identical quality to 1995. Victorious against ALL 15 opponents too. With a percentage 23% better too!

Do you know the way to Footy park, should I call Sydney in advance of your visit. maybe they can get the cup ready for shipping.

With more wins too.

yes agree. very decisive.

And a more dominant record in the finals too. And a forward line that scored 4 more goals per game too.

yes agree. that is the only way to view things. it is inarguable, that kicking 4 goals more per game makes you the best footy side. especially when a large chunk came from a group of subsequently exposed hacks.

I wonder how often Geelong was the highest scoring team in the late 80's/1990's? you better get onto DHL and ask for a bigger van. a lot of flags to be redistributed there.

in no way are you trying to distort things into narrow focus that appeases your biased emotive needs. in no way at all, I won't hear of it.

Essendon was obviously better. By every possible measurable category. You know it as well as I do.

can you work out what point I stopped taking you seriously? hint: it's not with the monkey screeching, I genuinely believe you have a fondness for bananas.

 

[Crow-mo]

Well done Cro-Mo ...you have done your bit to try and educate these delusional Bomber fans ...wether they wake up and smell the coffee and realise you are 100 percent correct is another matter though . Most knowledgable football pundits would agree that while the 2000 bombers were a very good team , the 1995 Carlton side were simply awesome and a class above with stars all over the field

if it were even close I'd have more empathy with them.

This Dan idiot almost tried to say 2000 Essendon were better than 1985, but his bias conflicted him too heavily.

 

[Smokin_Joe]

A team so good that it nearly lost its first final to a team that had never played in one before ? 13 points and they were lucky it wasnt closer.