Correction

[The Dutchman!]

Barney, Colley31 et al

I'm only aware of one Essendon supporter on this or any other forum going on about the injustices of top spot etc. Its just that he posts a great deal. And even he, I think its fair to say, cops the loss to Carlton on the chin.

The reality is that Bomber fans, whilst gutted by the waste of last year accept that sometimes thats footy. Carlton, whilst not worthy Grand Finalist, and whilst the recipients of a truck load of luck with goalkicking (theirs and ours), it has to be said had a real red hot go - they got the points (by a point).

The only downside (big picture wise) is that footy probably lost by missing out on what would have been a cracking good GF.

Barney, you can dribble on about how North were always going to beat us. No one believes that - least of all Dennis Pagen, and the sad this is, in your heart of hearts, I bet neither do you.

All in all, I'm just looking forward to a year of payback big time.

All the best
The flying dutchman

PS. Incidently, people (I think Barney is one of them) have questioned here where Essendon has improved over the offseason - Looking at the Ansett cup, I'd say all over the ground (backline: Henneman and possibly Pickett and Robran - midfield: Jason Johnston, Ramanauskus, Ruck: Barnes - will have a big year with EVERYTHING TO PROVE, forward line: McGrath, Rioli, McVeigh erm... Hird erm Lucas...)

Cannot wait to play North and Carlton this year - cannot wait. Brisbane on the other hand I respect and we'll have to see how that one goes.

 

[Jaffa]

Exactly, the worst thing about Carlton beating Essendon was that it robbed everyone of the chance to see a decent Grand Final.

Carlton didn't deserve to make the Grand Final based on their H&A season but they did so because they performed in September. However that is the way our competition works and that is how it will always stay.

On the other issue of Essendon beating North in the Grand Final, I don't agree with that. I think if they had of played off North would've had too much experience. Essendon are a very good side and should go close again this year however last season I still would've backed North. In the pressure of a Grand Final I think North just have too many players who can handle that kind of situation. As far as I'm concerned you can't say Essendon would've handled the situation as well as North when not many of them have been in that situation. Just look at how Alessio crumbled against Carlton.

 

[Longjohn]

Right on Jaffa.

I have heard it all, and am I sick of all the what ifs.

Here's a good one what if all the Kangaroo players and coaching staff had transfered to Windy Hill at the start of last year, then Essendon would have won the 99 Premiership.

Kangaroos are the 99 Premiers and Essendon are the 99 Minor Premiers, what's all the whoha about?

 

[Dan26]

I certainly cop the loss to Carlton on the chin.

We lost fair and square (but unluckily)
My main beef is about the top team (whoever it hapens to be, eg North in 1998) not getting recognition for being the best team, and peaking over the whole year rather than over 3 weeks. You can't finish top without being a good team under pressure.

However, I think it is also a fair comment that Essendon would have beaten the Roos easily if they had played them.

Essendon handled pressure magnificently through the whole season, winning an incredible 18 games.

North were FLAT in the GF. They could only manage the same number of scoring shots as Carlton !! It was a mediocre performance.

Sure, when Essendon played Carlton, conversion let them down (like it did in the 1984 GF when a victorious Essendon kicked 14.21, and in the 1998 GF when North kicked 8.22), but Essendon still had 33 shots to 24. When North played Carlton the next week both teams had 29 scoring shots !

I know you can't analyse every stat, but I have a gut feeling that a close preliminary final victory by Essendon would have been more helpful to them than if they had thrashed the Blues. Have a look at 1993. A narrow preliminary final victory, on the basis of which many people wrote of Essendon in the GF, but they won by 44 points ! Peoples rationale was that if Essendon could only just beat the Crows by 10 points, how could they beat Carlton ? But they thrashed them !

The pressure in the preliminary final in 1999 was MORE than the pressure than the Grand Final itself. Which match was more pressure filled, the 1999 prelim betweeen Essendon and Carlton, or the 1999 GF ? The preliminary final was played with more pressure and under MORE INTENSITY. Gees, some home and aay games are played with more intensity than Grand Finals.

Grand Final rarely live up to the hype. There are often tame affairs, not reflective of either clubs ability. I got the distinct impression, that if The Roos were playing anyone other than Carlton, they would have struggled. It's not as if they performed on the day. The only JUST did enough (score was 19.10 to 12.17)

Also, the Roos don't play in fornt of many big crowds. They only play in front of 70,000 plus once a year (in the GF in 1999), while Esendon are used to those sort of big match conditions nearly every week.

Watching the Dons beat North twice during the year, including a 26 point win where Carey kicked 10, showed their class. Carey was under a slight injury cloud in the GF, as was Stevens. The Bombers would not have has any problems at all. Essendon is a very finals experienced team, anyway, and has played under plenty of big match conditions.

Like in 1993, the preliminary final was the PRESSURE game of the finals, meaning that the GF itself is almost a step down. It was a step down for Essendon in 1993. The GF was a walk in the park, while the prelim against the Crows was the intensity pressure filled game.

Look ay 1994. West Coast (who were top of the ladder) beat 8th placed Collinwood AT HOME by only 2 points. They were a bit lucky. On the basis of that, how could the Eagles possibly beat anyone ? They only just beat the worst team in the 8, so how could the beat anyone else ? Well, they won the preliminary final and the GF by a combined total of 140 points, putting that theory to rest ! Just becasue the Eagles only just beat the Pies, doesn't at all mean that they can't win the GF against Geelong. In fact, they won the 1994 Grand Final against Geelong by 80 points !

That's a good example of how Essendon, who were a beter team than the Roos in 1999 (although the Roos were better in past years),and would have won the GF easily, if they had made it.

But it doesn't matter, becasue history will always say that North won the GF. But there will always be a question mark over it, becasue of their opponent. And history will forever hold Essendon as the winner of the McClelland trophy in 1999. That's history, and that is what happened.

I have alwyas considered myself a non-biased judger of football, even if my barracking for Essendon is huge. I am still capable of non-biased rationale thinkng. I mean, my all tme favourite gmae was between two teams who I HATE. Carlton v West Coast in Round 21 1995 at Subiaco. So, when I say Essendon would have beaten North easily if they had played them, I am being fair.

The 1999 GF could have been a home and away game. There was nothing "tough", or "spectacular", or "classy" about it at all. It was just a gmae of footy, in which both teams had 29 shots, and one team kicked more accurately wining by 35 points.

 

[Jaffa]

Are you ****ing mental.

The Grand Final was between Carlton and North. If it was between Essendon and North the conditions (ie. pressure, players etc) would have been completely different. You can't say North were flat and would've been beaten by Essendon. If North had've played Essendon then the tempo would've been completely different.

North are the premiers and there might be a question mark over that as far as Essendon supporters go but as far as everyone else is concerned there isn't. Essendon had their chance a blew it big time. They proved they weren't good enough to win the flag otherwise they would've at least made the Grand Final.

You can say they didn't perform on the day all you like but the reality is that if you can't win when you have to then the team possesses flaws. North didn't have any flaws last year. Essendon did. Premiers win when they have to win.

 

[Dan26]

The GF is still just one match.

North lost "on the day" to lower placed opponents in the home and away season too. The Roos were trying to win as hard as they could then, I assure you. One match doesn't make you the best team. The best team is decided over 6 months.

Jaffa, you're confusing the recognition given to winning the GF, with the actual acheivement of winning it. The hype and recognition far outweighs the acheivement. Yes, it gets recognition and hype. The GF gets a lot of hype, which it never lives up to. You respond to the hype. The actual acheivement of winning 3 matches in September doesn't match the hype that is given to it and it never has. It's been written in the media about not living up to the hype. The best team doesn't necessarily win the GF. Your coach Denis Pagan even said it himself. What, doyou disagree with your own coach ???

If Chelsea, win the FA Cup this year (which they may do), does that mean they are the best team ? No, of course not. The best team in soccer is the oner that win the premiership (i.e finishes top).

A couple of years ago, Manchester United won the premiership but got knocked out early inthe FA CUP. Now do you think people were saying, :"Man United doesn't deserve it. They proved they are NOT the best by getting knocked out"

No, of course people were NOT saying that. No team is unbeatable. Anyone can win a knockout cup. Man United may not have deserved to win that particular FA Cup tournamnent, becasue that is the nature of the tournament. They accept that it is knockout and anything can happen. BUT why should that one loss have anything to do with their standing in the "real stuff" (i.e the premireship which is won by finishing top)

In Aussie Rules, we call the premiershiup winning the GF, but the definition of premier mean "Best. Above all others". The team which is the best, and above all other is the "top of the ladder" team. This team is the premier team of the year, at least according to the definition.

Luck can play a part in finals too. North were lucky for instance that they didn't have to play Essendon,otherwise, the Dons would have started favourites in the GF, most likely winning it. Of course we will never know for sure, but it would have taken a monumental upset for the Roos to beat the Dons.

Oh sure, the Dons didn't make it. They lost ONE match (as North did at various times during the year). This doesn't mean they weren't the best. Carlton were the best team in 1995 and still got beatn a couple of times. It can happen. Luck plays a part in finals. Luck shouldn't decide the best team. 6 months of hard work, and PEAKING over the whole year is who the best is. You know it. Everybody knows it.

Jaffa, you must understand, I'm not downgrading North's effort in 1999 at all. They won the GF. They deserved to win that particular 4 week tournamnent. Yes, they performed on the day against a one-off opponest in a one-off match over 2 hours. They deserve credit.

But they SHOULD just be celared premiers of the finals series. What I've been proposing is Essndon are home and away premiers (with more recognition given to that acheivement), and the Roos, final seris premiers.

Then, you still have to win "when it counts" as you put it. If you don't win ON THE DAY, you won't win the GF. Nothing changes. But you also get credit for peaking over the whole season, by finishing above 15 others of 22 weeks. To finish top you have to have skill, pressure, intensity, al the qualitys of a top side. You simply HAVE to have these qualities to finish top. You can't be average and finish top. It's impossible.

And you would still have to win on the day to win the Grand Final too. That wil keep you happy.

I'm not downgrading the acheivement of winning the GF. I'm UP-GRADING the acheivement of finishing top. You could win BOTH, like in soccer. The best team of the year finishes top, while the team that wins on the day wins the knockout 4 week finals series tournament.

Whether it happens or not is NOT THE POINT. The point is that top spot DESERVES more recognition. The years best team is found over 6 months not 2 hours. Whats the point of 6 months of hard work ?????

Whilst the circumstances of and Ess- NM Grand Final would have been different to the eventual Carl-Nm Grand Final, and because of the nature of the one-off match means that anything can happen on the day, it is very hard to visualize North beating the Bombers.

Forget Essendon performance agaisnrt Carlton (which wasn't too bad anyway, as the had 9 more scoring shots), that match means nothing when the GF starts. If Essendon was there, it is very hard to imaging North beating them. Sure, we wil never know, but I highly doubt it.

Any team which only has a percentage of 115,has got some deficiency. Oh sure they're a great team, but for every 100 points their oppostion scored,the Roos only score 115 themselves. Thats not the for and against ratio of the years best team, I can tell you.

Like Essendon close preliminary final scare in 1993 when they JUST bat an inferior opponent before thrashing a more well credentiald opponent the nest week, 1999 may have turned into a similar story.

We'll never know, but hostory will always have Essendon as McCleland trophy winner for 1999, and the Roos as Grand Final winners. Nothing changes that. Both these two great team deserve credit. Not just the one that won a 4 week tournament.

 

[Jaffa]

No.

You can't compare English football to the AFL. The Premiership and the F.A. Cup are two entirely separate competitions. The AFL is one competition. Home and Away games followed by the finals. The reason the F.A. Cup receives so much attention is because it is 125 years old, it's actually older than the league set-up. Winning the F.A. Cup isn't like winning the Grand Final because you aren't the best team. If you win the AFL GF it is accepted in this country that you are the best team.

I understand what you're getting at but if you don't win the GF then you are looked at more as a loser in this country. Right or wrong that is the way it is.

I'm not a North supporter either, I'm a Collingwood supporter.

 

[Dan26]

Jaffa,

Listen. I KNOW HOW IT IS CURRENTLY PERCEIVED.

You don't need to tell me. I'm talking about how it SHOULD be. You don't need to tell me that the whole season is SEEN as one big competition. I already know how it is perceived.

That's my whole point. That's bad, because it renders 6 months of hard work pointless. That 6 months should be recognised as well as recognising the GF too.

And no, despite the GF being the thing everyone wants to win, everybody knows that it doesn't necessarily go to the best team. You know it, I know it. Every fan knows it. It has been talked about for years.

Oh sure, we all want to win it. That's not my point. Do you know of anyone that actually beleives the Crows were the years best team in 1997 or 98. Hardly anyone believes it.

People would jump at the chance to recognise the home and away premier in ADDITION to winning the 4 week final series. Who wouldn't want top spot rewared rather than ignored ?

You hit the nail on the head when you said the FA Cup doesn't go to the best team. I know. And yes it is similar to the GF in the respect that it culminates with a one-off match. I didn't say it was identical, but the similarity is there.

the 125 years of tradition you talk about has really got nothing to do with it. The GF is a lot of hype. If the H&A was given as much hype and recognition, then everyone (including you), would want to win top spot much more that what you currently do.

Did you know that when the SANFL, the VFA, and the WAFL all started in the late 1800's, the premiers were decided by finishing top. Did you know this ? In Rugby Leagye, South Sydney won 5 consecutive premierships in the 1920's, all by finishing top. That's the oldest and most traditional way to decide the premier team.

And remember, finals would still exist, but quite logically, if you perform on the day and win the GF, you will (or should) be declared champions of the finals series. Nothing more.

Would you not forecast an increase in H&A crowds if thr H&A season was seen as something to aspire to in its own right, rather than a "means to an end" that it currently is ?

It makes soooooo much sense. The finals would have to be a knockout tournament with al 8 teams being treated equally. Finals are about perfroming on the day (like the FA Cup), and if you lose, you should be out. That's what finals are about.

If this was the case jaffa, teams wouldn't be striving to get a double chance (like they are at the moment). Instead they would be striving to finish top to be declared H&A premiers. They wouldn't be striving to get a double chance, becasue there wouldn't be one.

Combine this with presenting,the McClelland trophy on the ground after top spot has been sealed, a significant cash bonus, and also basing the AFL draft on H&A finishing positions woud all contribut to top spot getting more recognition. These are EASY things to do.

People respond to hype, Jaffa. Look at the GF ! The acheivement of winning three matches in September isn't that hard in itself, but look at the recognition it gets !! People respond to hype. When I say it's not hard, it IS hard, but not as difficult as peaking over the whole season, and finishing above every other team over 6 months.

Like I said, despite what you say, whilst everyone wants to win the GF, I don't think ANYONE beleives that it always goes to the best team. Like the FA Cup, (as you yourself said), anyone can win a one-off knockout match on the day against a one-off opponent, and that deserves credit (I never saud it didn't), but SO does finishing on top.

 

[Tim]

Two points. I'm a Swans fan living in Sydney and I remember distinctly the discussion with friends after seeing the Crows comprehensively beat the Swans at the SCG mid-season in 1998. We agreed that the Crows were easily the best team we'd seen that year and that only injury would stop them winning the flag. So they didn't finish round 22 on top - they were a couple of weeks earlier but eased off in August for an assault in September. Who's to say they wouldn't have finished first in '98 if that was what was most important?
Secondly (and this flows on) the team that is top at round 22 may have only just got there. In 1995 Carlton were dominant and were clearly the best side as shown by the H&A ladder and the finals. In 1996, for example, Sydney finished top but there were only 6 points between first and 5th and the Swans would have finished 4th if they'd lost to the Eagles in the final round at the SCG and still only finished top because Brisbane lost to Collingwood. In this situation it is as much luck as anything which determines top spot. Remember 1980? Richmond and Carlton were the dominant teams yet Geelong finished on top. In 1993 Essendon finished on top by percentage - maybe they played a weak team on a dry day and Carlton played a weak team on a wet day and lost some percentage. Or maybe Carlton played less weak teams twice - who knows? The minor premiership is no more definitive than the GF in determining the best team overall. A choice has to be made and culturally Australia has chosen the GF to be more significant. (It is the same in Rugby League, the American NFL, NHL, NBA, Baseball etc - soccer is in fact the only major sport I can think of where it isn't the case. And even then the World Cup and European Cups are one-off matches in the style of GFs). And anyway, if we honoured the minor premiers above all others Collingwood would be so far ahead in flags as to be beyond the pain threshold of any non-Magpie fan!

 

[Dan26]

Actually Tim, Collingwood, and Carlton have both finished on top of the ladder 17 times each.

Essendon has finished on top 15 times.

No. I'm not talking about putting the H&A season above everything else. I am just talking about giving it more recognitiom than it currently gets.

I STILL WANT TO HAVE THE GF

Repeat : I STILL WANT TO HAVE THE GF.

If you finish on top on percentage, is that any different to winning the GF by a point ? It just means it's close ! So what ? Grand Finals have been close too, have they not ?

You might have had an easier draw. Luck can play a part. My friend, luck plays a bigger part in finals than it does over the H&A. If you finish on top you DESERVE it.

Perhaps if the Crows had had an injury free H&A season in 1998 they WOULD have finished top. After all, they had the best percentage.

The Crows were practically injury free in the finals, but that is beside the point. They could have copped a swag of injureis in the finals after finising on top (hypotheticlly) with 17 wins, after an injury free H&A. It happened the other way around. They had an inury filed H&A, and an injury free finals series.

Remember too, that after getting thrashed in the first week to Melbourne in 1998, the Crows COULD have been eliminated. Their destiny was not in their own hands. If they were eliminated after that loss (and they could have been), you would have not even written your post. They wouldn't even have played Sydney in the second week.

Injuries happen and are part and parcel of football. Luck always pays a factor.

But if a team finished above all other over 22 gruelling weeks, thety deserve some sort of recognition.

NOBODY believes (and it has been sad for years) that the GF winner is necessarily the best. Sure, we all want to win it, but it doesn't always go to the best team. Sometimes it does, but not always.

Maybe the Crows were the best team in 1998, who knows ? Like I said, with luck with injuries,they could very well have finished top. But they didn't. North did.

A lot of people say North weren't deserving premiers in 1999, becasue they didn't have to go through the Bombers.

There has OFTEN been a question mark over some teams, as you are logically going to get, when a 4 week tournament is supposed to decide the years best team. The years best team is found over 6 months, not 4 weeks.

Also, you mention culture :

When the GF started 100 years ago, there was NO TRADITION. But it was given recognition by the ruling body, and people responded INSTANTANEOUSLY.

People will respond to recognition. If top spot was given more recognition than it currently get, people would want to win it more than what they currently do.

Remember TIM, teams can still, and will always aspire to win the Grand Final, but the years best team deserves recognition too.

 

[Dan26]

Tim,

Also, about recognsing the top team, it doesn't mean Collingowwd BECOME more successful of a sudden. GF wins count too, you know, and they have only had 14.

It's like in England, where you can win BOTH the FA Cup and the premieship (for finising top)

For example, Collingwood has won 17 H&A premierships and 14 finals series premierships.

Essendon has won 15 of both.

Carlton has won 17 H&A flags, and 16 finals series permierships.

St.KIlda has won 2 H&A premierships (in 1997, and 1965), and ONE Finals series premiership (in 1966)

It would be great if these acheivements were recognised. Not so much recognised, but ACKNOWLEDGED

 

[Arch]

without reading all the enormous posts above- id just like to say that if North couldnt beat essendon when Carey kicked 10 goals and played like a champion, then they wouldnt have been able to do it in the GF.
but who really gives a f**k now anyway.

 

[Longjohn]

Why are you still crying over spilt milk, Essendon had their chance but they stuffed up, no-one else is to blame they just were not good enough.

But hey they were minor premiers and the reserves won the flag, I think the reserves competition should be given a lot more recognition. Oh no there is something else for you to all cry about.

 

[Dan26]

Longjohn,

Your team was screwd for not being recognised for being the best in 1998. The Crows played 3 weeks of stellar football, and deservedly won the GF, but they got recognised for being champions of the whole year. North SHOULD have been recognised as being H&A champions (technically they were, but it should be given more recognition), and the Crows, Finals Series Champions.

It's not fair, that the Kangaroos 1998 season, in which they finished above all others over 22 weeks was not recognised, in ADDITION to still recognising Adelaide as GF winners.

My team (Essendon) has got nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter who the top team is