Comparing the '91 Eagles to the 2000 Bombers

[Dan26]

Well, we are half way through the season. Seems like an appropriate time to compare the two teams who were the last to go through the first half of a season undefeated.

That being West Coast in 1991 and Essendon in 2000.

West Coast actually won their first 12 in 1991, but for the purpose of this discussion, I will only take into account their first 11.

West Coast sat on top in 1991 with 11-0. They had a points for of 1306, a points against of 707 and a phenomenal percentage of 184.7

Essendon, also 11-0 have a points for of 1464, a points aganist of 934, and a percentage of 156.75

Essendon have scored about 150 points more than the Eagles did at the same time in 1991, but the West Coast had conceced 227 less points !!!

I find that unbelievable. Remember, Essendon have the best defence this year so far (statistically speaking), yet West Coast conceded over 200 less points than Essendon at the saem time in 1991.

West Coadt were, in the modern era at least, the greatest defensive team in hostory in 1991.

They were also far and away the years best team, and were, in my opinion, the best team to NOT win a flag.

Thoughts ?

 

[GoEagles]

The figures speak for themselves, the only problem they had which was their downfall was inexperience of playing finals footy compared to Hawthorns amazing record.

 

[gocatsgo]

Dan24, the Eagles in 1991 didn't have finals experience, but the experience they gained from that season saw them win 2 of the next 3 flags.

They were very good, but were still beatable. Their midfield of Kemp, Matera and co were still very young and gained the expereince neccessary. Their defence was outstanding as it was for the next ten years and that season Sumich kicked 100 goals.

In the finals Hawthorn beat them in Perth and at Waverley and I still believe that if the weather hadn't have been so bad in the preliminary, Geelong would have beaten them as well.

If you remember in round 22, the Eagles lost to Fitzroy, the simgle biggest upset of the decade. They were very good, but certainly beatable.

At this stage, I can't see a weakness at Essendon, can anyone else?

 

[sainter]

I knew the link to Geelong would be coming!

zzzzzzzzz

 

[Dan26]

Gocatsgo,

Finals experience is a myth.

I should have put that in my topic titled, "football myths" (see a few pags back)

FACT. Adelaide won the 1997 Grand Final, with no finals experience. Not only did they win, but they were the first side in history to win 4 consecutive finals matches. This from a team, who had never made the finals, apart from a brief flirtation in 1993.

FACT 2 St.Kilda, with no finals experiece, win their way through to a Grand Final in 1997. On their way to this Grand Final, they beat a finals hardened North Melbourne. (simliar situation with Sydney in 1996)

FACT 3. In 1987, Melbourne made the finals (just). It was the first time they had made the finals in 23 years. They came up against North Melbourne in the elimination final. North Melbourne had played in 10 of the last 13 finals series up to that point. Despite this, Melbourne won by 120 points.

The next week, against the Swans (who made the finals in 1986), the Dees won again by 80 points.

Then, in the prelimianry final agaisnt the much more talented Hawthorn, they led when the final siren sounded, only to lose with a goal after the siren. How could a team, so lacking in finals experience, get so close to the more talented and more experienced Hawks ? Tell me.

The only "expereince" worth noting is "games" experience.

Finals experience is meaningles, and this has been proved time and time again. If you have played 200 games, but you have NOT played in a final, there is no reason, if you are a great player, why you cant star in the finals.

Robert Flowers first finals games was in 1987 after he had played over 270 games. He was a match winner in his first finals game, despite not having played in a final.

As was Bob Skilton in 1970 when South Melbourne made the finals.

Sure, there have been times where more "finals' experienced teams have beaten their less experienced counterparts. Those wins have got nothing to do with finals experience. They were simply becasue the victors were better and more talented than their opponents.

West Coast were easily the best team in 1991. Yeah, they had a shock loss to Fitzroy in Round 22, in a meaningless (for them ) match as top spot had been secured.

However, even the best teams can play a bad game. West Coast, hit some bad form at the wrong time. Remember, this team made the finals in 1990, and in fact played FOUR finals in 1990, all in Melbourne. They also made the finals in 1988.

They were not good enough on the day. That's what can happen in a one-off match. When you decide the season with ONE match, it leads to the farcical situation of the years best team not being declared premiers. West Coast were the years best team and should have been rewarded. Hawthorn should have been rewarded for wining a 4 week tournament in 1991. Nothing more. After all, lets face it......... that's all they won isn't it. A 4 week tournement. And they deserved to win it too. I know the season is not recognised this way, but it should be.

Finals are all hype.

I mean gocatsgo, tell me........ how often do finals live up to the hype ? I'll tell you. Rarely. The years best game is invariably a home and away game. Teams can have bad final, just like they can have bad home and away game. There have been some shocking finals in recent years. Gmes that have lacked intensity. Just becasue the AFL puts all the "weight" on the finals doesn't instantaneously make tme better games, where xpereince counts. No, finals experience doesn;t count. Overall experience is very importnat (as in how many games you have played), but the amount if finals games you have played is irrelevant to your performance in a final, as my examples show.

P.S. Adelaide won their first finals match agaisnt Hawthorn in 1993. Hawthorn were competing in the finals for the 12 consecutive year, but were beaten by the Crows who had never made the finals. It just goes to show you, that if you are the best on the day, you will win. Finals experience doesn't count.

 

[gocatsgo]

Dan 24.

FACT 4,1989 Geelong made there way to the GF with no finals expereince....
The first game they lost by 13 goals to Essendon, then they beat Melbourne by 10 and beat Essendon by 16 goals. Are you telling me that finals experience didn't make a difference of 29 goals in 2 weeks, the finals experience was the difference, they knew what to expect.

There are always exception to the rules.

Can anyone see the Essendon falling twice to the same side in this years finals as the eagles did in 1991, I certainly can't.

and by the way, how often do finals live up to the hype, pretty often... Grand Finals are a different situation.

a few examples...

Carlton V Essendon 1999
Sydney V Essendon 1996
Richmond V Essendon 1995

(noticing a trend here)

Geelong V North 1994
Geelong V Footscray 1994
North V Hawthorn 1994
Essendon V Adelaide 1993
Geelong V StKilda 1991
Hawthorn V Geelong 1991

should I bother to go on? I LOVE FINALS

[This message has been edited by gocatsgo (edited 24 May 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Gocatsgo,

I could rattle off many, many finals that have been disappointments. I can tell you, there are a hell of a lot more that were disappointing than those that were good. Honestly, I could spend 500 words telling you all of the crap finals, but I won't (unless you want me to)

I'm not downplaying finals. I'm simply stating that they are hyped. And, in nearly all cases, they can't match the hype. How can they ?

Sure, the games you mentioned were good games.

But, did it occur to you, that in those very seasons you mentioned, there were home and away games which were better spectacles and more hard fought games than the finals you mentioned. Did that occur to you ?

Now, about 1989. Finals experience was not worth a 170 point turnaround. Essendon entered the qualifying final underdogs, and Geelong believed their own publicity. Geelong played a poor game, but hey......it happens.

Like I said, Melbourne, who hadn't made the finals for 23 years won their first finals match in 1987 agaisnt North by 120 points. And the Kangaroos had played in 10 of the last 13 finals series. Explain that.

I might add that in 1989, Essendon hadn't played in the finals since 1985 (does a one-point elimination loss to Fitzroy in 1986 count ?)

Look, I love finals too, but they are not an accurate reflection of who the years best team is. All they are is putting the best teams against each other. But you get that with the "match of the round" in the home and away !

Players do NOT try harder in the finals. Are you tellng me that players and teams deliberatley gives less than 100% in the home and away, simply so they can "lift" come finals time ? Puh-lease. Players try their hardest every week. Sure, they can have an off game in the home and away, but that can happen in the finals too. It happens often

In todays TV guide, there was an interesting comment aboutthe FA CUP. I mention this, because the FA Cup is a knockout match held after the soccer home and away season has been concluded. it is their Grand Final.

Here is the comment :

"The FA Cup, like so many cup finals and AFL Grand Finals was ho-hum, a great occasion with a passionate full house sitting through a match which rarely lived up to the occasion. A dull and timid first half, was followed by a slightly better second, which saw Chelseas multi-national team parde some of their talents"

Now, about all those matches you mentioned,

The Grand Final, or any final for that matter has the potential to be a good game. Just like any home and away game has the potential to be good also. The problem is, just becasue there are a couple of good finals, you are using that as a reason to "generalise" and define all finals that way. You can't do that. A final is no more likely to be one-seided, or close than any home and away game.

You know what the problem is ? :

The problem is that the AFL put all the recognition on the finals series. No recognition at all is given to the home and away. Therefore, we are "MADE TO BELIEVE" that becasue the finals get all the credit, they are automatically better standard games. That's rubbish. Just becsue the AFL give recognitio to something doesn't automatically make it better. A finals game is just a game of footy. Pre-game hype forces us to assume tht the match will be "great", but this often doesn't prove to be the case.

If the AFL, for example decided to give the home and away seaosn as much recognition as the finals series, we's all be saying : " Oh gee, what a great performance by so-and-so in the home and away. What a team. That's where you prove yourself"

But, we don't say tat, becasue the AFL puts all the attention on finals.

Now, like I said, I love finals. They are exciting, they are knockout. To me that is the appeal. They are basically knockout (from the second week on) That's what makes them exciting. But it doesn't make the teams try any harder, and it certainly doesn't make the games a batter standard.

Gocatsgo, you're just a victim of hype. The AFL has basicaly said: "we want you to care about finals, so we give the finals all the recognition". You have bought that and therefore you think that finals are better games than home and away games. This is not NECESSARILY true.

If you want to know why, just read everything I have written here again.

 

[jod23]

You'll all say that im biased but lets be serious your rating essendon on 11 games thats all. The eagles went on to win two flags and remain one of the greatest teams in history. If and i emphasise IF essendon go on and win the flag and then dominate for a couple of years then you can start comparing them too the early 90's Eagles.
Then and only then.

2000 the year of the Eagle

 

[The Dutchman!]

Our one weakness (other than potential injuries) is in the Ruck - Barnes is doing a great job but there is little in support...

Not that we're complaining all that hard....

 

[Dan26]

Oh, and another thing.

In 1967, Richmond made the finals It was the first time in 24 years that they had made the finals. 1943 was the last time before 1967.

Despite this, the Tigers won the second-semi final, then they won the Grand Final against Geelong.

I'm telling you, finals experience counts for nought. The only experience worth anything is overall "games" experience.

If you have played 200 games and NO finals, you will have an edge over someone who has played 40 games. Even if the plyer with 40 games has played 6 finals matches.

So what if he has played 6 finals matches ? The player with over 200 games is better equipped to handle an AFL match. Any match, be it a home and away game or a finals match.


That's just the way it is. I appreciate people can have opinions, but on this matter, this is a fact. You can't argue against it. Finals experience means nothing.

 

[Dan26]

Jod23,

Why can't we compare Essendon to the Eagles ?

Look, the Eagles won 2 flags, but, OBVIOUSLY they were in seperate years. One was in 1992 and the other in 1994 (gee, I'm really stating the obvious here)

I'm talking about the best team in any one given year. We're talking about the greatest individual team ever in Essendon in 2000 (Potentially). As far as I'm concerned if Esssendon win it all in 2000 and go undefated, but we the miss the finals for the next 10 years, this has got nothing to do with the 2000 team.

If the 2000 team is hailed as the greatest ever, what the hell has that got to do with Essendon's 2001-02-03-04 sides? They will all be diferent sides. You can't really compare one year to the next.

If you want to talk about eras, then that is different.

But, I'm not talking about eras. This Esendon team isn't going to play in 7 consecutive Grand Finals or anything. But they might just be the best ever team in any one individual year. That is a distinct possibility.

You can only look at each individual year, buddy.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

You don't need a top class ruck to win flags though Dutchy! Gardie's the first half decent ruck we've had, but I think you could say we've done OK without one.

(BTW/ if you still want to know who I am, email)

Dan- You are amazing! Talking about finals campaigns from before you were even born (and even making sense too! -usually). Now I don't agree with your premier vs top of the ladder arguement... but keep praising my team by all sake! And if you want to remember them as the best of '91, go for it! Anyway, good luck Bombers. If you can go all the way this year, it'll the be the first really deserved flag in a while.

 

[Daniel]

Great stuff Dan24, I agree with all of it. Finals matches are only marginally more likely to be exciting than any given game in the home and away season because they pit the best teams against each other. Because there are obviously fewer finals than regular matches, the percentage of exciting finals is also less. It's proportionate to the number of matches played.

I've always held the belief that semi-finals are the best matches to watch, in any sport. In the AFL's case, this would be preliminary finals. "The ones before the big one" always seem to be so much more thrilling, possibly because the teams are desperate to make it to the big occasion and play without the nerves, or whatever it is, that often sees one team over-run in a grand final, or what the rest of the would simply call the final. Then again, perhaps it is because there are twice as many semi-finals than there are finals..

 

[Grendel]

I am shifting house saturday and in cleaning up I came across my copy of the 91 GF Record.
Basically I am sick of the talk that the Hawks 'stole' the 91 from a better side. Dan this is were your finals doesnt reward the best team of the year goes out the door. Wont go into a long rant about it just the same old ,until they all play twice etc, you know the rest.

The Hawthorn side of that time I have read won from "Experience" and the WC were the better team, one word reply

GARBAGE!

Sure they were building towards a great team but in 91 the Hawks had the better side.

Here is the line up as named for the game head to head, see who you would rather have.

B: Collins(D) Langford(W)Ayres (D)
Worsfold Brennan McKenna

HB: Tuck(W) Mew (W) Jencke (D)
Turley Lockyer Waterman

C: Pritchard(D)Allan (W) Gowers (L)
Kemp Watters Matera

HF: Hudson(D) Brereton(W)Hall (W)
Heady Mcintosh Lewis

F: P.Dear(L) Dunstall(W)Jarman(W)
Jakovich Sumich Hart

R: Lawrence(D)Condon(W) Platten(W)
Irving Lamb Pyke

Int: Anderson(L) Morrisey(D)
Mainwaring Wilson

Okay my head to head we win 11 postions, the Coasters win 3 and the others dead heat cant split them.

FullBack 1 Win 2 Dead heats
Halfback 2 Wins I Dead heat
Centre 1 Win 1 Deadheat 1 loss
Halfforward 2 Wins I Deadheat
FullForward 2 Wins 1 Loss
Rucks 2 Wins 1 Deadheat
Int 1 Win 1 Loss

I know this isnt how they actually lined up in the game, but it is the selected side as picked.

So who deserved to win and who did win it, and EASY TOO! Acuse me of bias I dont care, there are more better players in ability in the Hawthorn line up than the Eagles.
Thats why they won it.

ps would have won 92 as well if we werent ripped of big time in WA by the umps!!! but thats another story

 

[Grendel]

Couple of other points in reply to a few things in above threads.

Dan that Melbourne side in 87 how did they get so close? They had the wind for THREE quarters helped.
Ask people who went to the game,it was amazing at the end of the 1st Q that Melbourne kicked with a 2/3 goal breeze it changed RIGHT BEFORE the bounce to start the 2nd Q and they had a 5/6 goal (yes it was a gale) howler in the second.

It was amazing never seen anything like it.

Bob Skilton couldnt have been a match winner in his ONLY final as the Swans lost the game.

If players dont try harder in finals, why is it that every bloody ex footballer says that they wanted to prove themselves in finals? Or finals where the true champions appear, or couldnt play in finals and thats my major disappointment etc etc. Fact is finals are what it is all about when it comes to (self) proving you can really do something when ITS ALL OR NOTHING.

FINALS FINALS FINALS thats what really counts. Home and Away just gives you the hope that you will get to the FINALS.

Sorry Dan but your non-stop pushing of H&A is getting to me

I dont agree, sorry. If you cant cut it in finals footy I dont care, you aint the best.
And thats if you win every game every year for the next century.

WIN THE GF AND YOUR THE BEST!


im really tired from shifting household items sorry if I sound narky

 

[Pessimistic]

Dan24.

I believe in luck, not logic.

The best assistance to win a premiership is to meet the teams (you usually beat) in the finals. This is much better than advantage from coming first

Look at this year. If four vic teams finish in top 4 places there will be finals between 1 and 4 and 2 and 3. The only advantage is home ground which is negated through all teams playing at MCG or Colonic (shudder) So in a way you will be right to say finishing first after H&A is not rewarded. Essendon look like finishing first but if the fourth team were (for example) Richmond the Bombers would be totally equal to the Tigers.

But my real point is (using the theme of luck) Why compare the 2000 bombers to the 1991 eagles. the eagles 'choked' didn't they ? Isn't that tempting fate ?

Similarities

- Previous year - Eagles lost in finals to collingwood - after drewing at waverley - Bombers unexpectedly beaten by Carlton

- Year in question - Eagles beaten by team which had an average year but who had won three premierships in previous seasons - In Essendon's case this would be north

-Afterwards - this is where it gets better - Eagles win 2 of next three flags - this means the Bombers would lose to North this year in the GF but would win 2 flags in 2001-2003

Why not compare to Carlton '95 ? Their run to the flag was totally predictable. The even managed their only losses to thos teams which would not play them in the finals

 

[Dan26]

Grendel,

It just comes back to the same old thing.

The AFL gives all the recognition to the finals. Therefore, you and me (and everyone else) cares about winning them more. But this recognition, doesn't make them better standard games. Sorry, it doesn't.

All the recognition does, is make the winner of the Grand Final the years champion. It doesn't mean the games are more intense or of a higher standard. This is an insult to all the players who give 100 % in any match, home and away or finals.

I'm sure, philosophically you will agree with me. I just need to explain it to you.

I love the finals. They are exciting, in that they are knockout. However, the years best team is proved over 6 months, not 2 hours on Grand Final day. Sorry, but it's true.

Do you think Chelsea, who won an exciting one-off "BIG" match the other day (the FA Cup final) are claiming to be champions of the "ENTIRE" season ? Of course not. ManU are becasue they finished top. Chelsea are champions of a seperate tournament.

If the AFL awatded the home and away premiership, FOLLOWED by the finals series premiership, the recognition factor would be so much better.

This would mean West Coast would be rewarded in 1991 for finishing above everyone over 22 weeks. THEN Hawthorn would be rewarded for winning the final series.

I'll give the Hawks credit that year Grendel. They were good. But why should 4 weeks of football overrided 22 weeks, in which West Coast dominated. West Coast proved they were the best over the long haul that year. Hawthorn proved they were the best over 4 weeks. Excellence over a LONG PERIOD of time is harder to achieve thean excellence over 4 weeks.

My "top spot deserves recognition" idea makes so much sense. We still have the Grand Final, but we can still reward the home and away series champion. We reward both. Why wouldn't people want that ??????

I mean, who wouldn't want to see the years best team rewarded rather than ignored ? I don't see why you would "disagree". I am simply proposing common-sense and fairness. The Grand Final would still be there as the conclusion to the season.

Also Grendel, concerning 1991,

I still stand by the fact that West Coast were the best team. They hit bad form at the wrong time. It was nothing to do with "finals inexperience". It was simply to do with bad form. Remember, they lost to Fitzroy in the last round, so their bad form was nothing to do with inexperience.

The Hawks were poor at the start to of the season, being only 6-5 at the half way point.

Remember, West Coast played 4 finals in 1990, all away from home. How much experience do they want ?????? Adelaide didn't need any experience in 1997, and they WON 4 consecutive finals !

No, I'm sory, but as the Eagles loss to Fitzroy in the last round proves, their failure in September was just due to hitting bad form at the wrong time.

I stand by their home and away record of 19-3, with a percentage of 162.2, as proof that they were the years best. Best over the WHOLE season, not just over 4 weeks. Credit to the mighty Hawks. They won the finals that year. But that credit should not carry any further than the finals series. Hawthorn shouldn't get the "home and away" as credit too. They only finished second in the home and away. Why should the Hawks be called championsof the whole year ??????

Alos, I acknowledge that in 1987, the Dees had the breeze for three quarters. But what about the previous two weeks. With NO finals experience, they beat both North and Sydney by over 200 points.

Like I said, a player such a Robert Flower with 270 games but NO finals, wil be better equipped to handle a final than a player with 100 games, and 10 finals matches. Flower was one of melbournes best in the finals, despite never having layed in a final. The overall experience that counts in overall games experience. Not finals experience.

I think Melbourne did exceptionally well in the 1987 Preliminary final, breeze or no breeze. With less talent and less "overall" experience they nearly won.

 

[Dan26]

Pessimistic,

You've got to understand that even under the final five, where the top team had a distinct advantage, that advantage is not adequate.

I mean, that's all you get after 22 weeks of hard work.....a double chance ! Big deal.

And back to waht you were saying Pessimistic. Just because West Coast lost the Grand Final i 1991, doesn't mean the Bombers will this year. Are you honestly predicting that outcome of a match 4 months from now ?

And, even under the final five, it's a double chance that disappears on Grand Final day.

Even under the current system, the top team can be eliminated in ONE match in either the preliminary final or the Grand Final.

If begs the question :

If the top team can eliminated in ONE match in the 3rd week or the 4th week, why can't they be eliminated in the first wek too ????
The top team can be eliminated after one loss anyway, so what difference does it make if that one loss is in the first week or the third week ??(or the 4th week, the Grand Final, for that matter)

As you can see, it is simply better if the finals were a knockpout tournament with the best 8 teams competing in quarter-finals, semi-final, then the Grand Fina.

First reward the home and away premiership to the top team, THEN play the SEPERATE knockout finals series tournament. If the top team also win the finals series, they have done the "double"

I don't know what Grendel is complaining about. Under my proposal, you will still have finals, and they will still conclude the year. That will keep him happy.

In fact, I think Grendel would like it even more. Why do you ask ? Becasue the finals would be completely knockout, which makes them more exciting.

Finals are about performing on the day. They are not about getting "second" chances. If 1st lost to 8th in the first week of the finals and were liminated, it wouldn't be a "waste" of a season, because they at least would be recognised as "home and away" champions. They would obviouly be disappointed that they coudn't win the finals series in addition to finishing on top, but at least they would be recognsied for a great season (as Manchester United were)

 

[Pessimistic]

Grendel, I'm being sucked in just as you were to provide a long, boring answer when all DAN24 does is copy and paste his boring "H&A is important too" rantings.

Perhaps we should point out to Dan that the premiership list goes:

1990 Collingwood
1991 Hawthorn
1992 West Coast Eagles

No mention of Essendon, Geelong or West Coast (1991) as they came SECOND

You qualify via the Home and Away season and then you go into the finals and the best team wins.

Consider if Man United win the premiership, but the second team (Arsenal for example) beat them twice but dont have as many wins. Man U's premiership is just as questionable as Hawthorn's in 1991 but ten years hence all is forgotten and Hawtorn were the PREMIERS in 1991

Or consider if every team played each other twice, home and away. The closest thing you would get to that in 1991 would be if you added all the final and ansett cup games to the others. Considering Hawthorn were day and night premiers that year then their performance would be seen as the best, regardless of whether they beat the poorer teams by more goals (percentage) which isn't surprising as they play in the dry whereas it can be much wetter in Victoria.

Hawthorn Won fair and square under the prevailing rules. There is no dispute. Hawthorn were in the 11th year of 13 consecutive finals appearances(7 consecutive GF), mostly when you had to be top four not the top half qualify that the eagles are now claiming to be a similar achievement

Also I'd like to add that hawthorn have rarely been embarrased by huge defeats in finals, unlike WCE, Carlton etc

Hawthorn 86-91 were the greatest team in living memory and Essendon, WCE, Carlton, North etc have a LONG LONG way to go before comparison can even begin

You don't have to be biased to see that.

 

[magpie greg]

Dan 24, to quote you in a earlier post:-

"Robert Flowers first finals games was in 1987 after he had played over 270 games. He was a match winner in his first finals game, despite not having played in a final.

As was Bob Skilton in 1970 when South Melbourne made the finals."

Dan, SOuth Melbourne lost the 1SF to St. Kilda. How was Bobby a match-winner?????? (unless you are saying he played so poorly he helped the Saints win the game?!?! My memory is he played an average game).

 

[magpie greg]

Sorry Grendel, you have already pointed out the Bobby Skilton thing to Dan.

 

[gocatsgo]

Dan24

Geelong were the rank underdogs in the qualifying final in 1989, I know I was there.

Essesndon finished 2nd Geelong finished 3rd after the H&A in 1989. Essendon had the finals experience and went into the game as warm favourites.

In fact next week against Melbourne, Geelong were the underdogs and were rank outsiders when they beat Essendon by 94 pts in the preliminary final.

 

[Arch]

the "best team of the year" and the premiers are two totally seperate entities. People give a stuff about one but not the other.

Dan,
Wouldnt giving away the premiership to the best performed home & away team, kill any interest in the last rnds of the season if its already sewn up (ie- as it looks like already ???) Wheres the interest for say Melbourne or Richmond fans under your system, if we (the dons that is) are already so many games out in front. ????
(running on the assumption that the finals series isnt so hyped, but the H&A season is what matters- like you want it).

i know ive been disagreeing with you about this since about January- Its just I conform to Grendels theory that its all about performing in finals, and if you cant win sudden death games, you shouldnt be premier(or considered the "best side of the year")

2 cents.
A.

------------------
BOMBERS REIGN SUPREME.

 

[elt]

I have read with interest the loooong on going discussions about premiers vs home and away season winners.

I know I will be branded as being a victim of AFL propoganda but my feeling is that the best team of the year needs to prove themselves in ALL circumstances. i.e. not only in home and away games where wins are good but losses don't disqualify you, but in the situation where it is all on the line.

I understand it is all on the line because of the current rules setup. But I say a team which is good enough to win enough games in H&A to get a finals appearance AND beat the best teams when it is do or die are a much better side overall than say Essendon of last year or can win at H&A but not in finals. As for North last year not being as good a side because they didn't prove themselves against Essendon, they can only play the team that turns up on GF day.

On a side issue does anyone else see the hypocritical aspect of the pro-Essendon argument here? The years that they finish MINOR premiers but don't win the flag they deserve recognition but they still want to count themselves as being one of the top flag winners in the history of the comp.

Ok I'm getting off my soapbox now.

 

[Arch]

please please please please please- its got nothing to with Essendon at all. Its about the best system for the game- not for OUR club.

A.