Essendon (2000) vs Brisbane (2001-04) vs Geelong (07-11)

[Dom PC]

Simple, give your vote to who you think had the greater team at its peak?

So Essendon's team of 2000 vs Brisbanes best team from 01-04 vs Geelongs best team from 07-11

 

[Gazza_11]

Should be Essendon 1999-2001.

 

[Dom PC]

Should be Essendon 1999-2001.

My mistake. Can I change this ?

 

[policegetthatman]

Nothing competes with 3 premierships in a row.

 

[Jesse Custer]

Its always hard to compare teams from different eras but no doubt if a side can win 3 flags in a row then automatically they should be the greatest. Essendon had the single best season in the history of the game and Geelong have played some brilliant footy winning a tonne of games but hasn't been able to go back to back at least.

I'll go Brisbane.

 

[justlookingaround]

Geelong 2008, they didn't win the flag, but in a one off game they'd beat any opponent.

 

[policegetthatman]

Geelong 2008, they didn't win the flag, but in a one off game they'd beat any opponent.

Except Hawthorn

 

[Dan26]

Stupid thread again designed to deliberately be biased against the 2000 team who played football to a higher standard than has ever been played.

It is comparing one year to two other clubs with 4 year era's.

There are two ways to do a thread about this:

ERA'S
Who was the most successful club over a 5 year era:

Essendon 1998-2002
Brisbane 1999-2003
Geelong 2007-2011

Or a three year era? Or a 4 yera era. Or whatever arbitrary time period you want to use:

OR, instead of looking at club achievments over a period of time you are looking at individual years, you'd do it like this:

TEAM
Who was the better premiership team. i'e which team in those years played football to the highest quality of the sport of Australian Rules Football.

Essendon 2000
Brisbane 2001
Brisbane 2002
Brisbane 2003
Port Adelaide 2004
Sydney 2005
West Coast 2006
Geelong 2007
Hawthorn 2008
Geelong 2009
Collingwood 2010

But the thread-starter would never ask this because he would be forced to choose which Brisbane team was the best and two of the Brisbane teams wouldn't get votes. The reality is, that none of the three Brisbane teams would deserve to win such a poll, but if a biased person WANTED to choose Brisbane, he would have to choose one of them, meaning two of them couldn't get votes.

So, that's why he would never do such a thread. He is deliberately designing the current thread in such a way as to get 4 years worth of Brisbane votes in one category to boost the total.

So, go on Dom PC... ask who was the better premiership team and set it out in 11 options from 2000-2010.

And if you want, do the "era" thread too. I won't be voting for Essendon on that because I'm not biased. I'd vote for Brsbane as the most successful because they won more premierships and WERE more successful (unless Geelong wins on Saturday)

But that doesn't mean that any of those 3 Brisbane teams could get close to Essendon of 2000 in a head-to-head match. How could a 17-5 Brisbane team in 2001 with a percentage of 127% get within 5 goals of Essendon 2000 at their best? Essendon of 2000 was simply unstoppable

Brisbane as a club might have kept on winning flags, but they never finished top of the ladder and they never totally dominated in the finals (not like Essendon did in 2000). They were never that good, really.

 

[apollo_creed]

Stupid thread again designed to deliberately be biased against the 2000 team who played football to a higher standard than has ever been played.

It is comparing one year to two other clubs with 4 year era's.

There are two ways to do a thread about this:

ERA'S
Who was the most successful club over a 5 year era:

Essendon 1998-2002
Brisbane 1999-2003
Geelong 2007-2011

Or a three year era? Or a 4 yera era. Or whatever arbitrary time period you want to use:

OR, instead of looking at club achievments over a period of time you are looking at individual years, you'd do it like this:

TEAM
Who was the better premiership team. i'e which team in those years played football to the highest quality of the sport of Australian Rules Football.

Essendon 2000
Brisbane 2001
Brisbane 2002
Brisbane 2003
Port Adelaide 2004
Sydney 2005
West Coast 2006
Geelong 2007
Hawthorn 2008
Geelong 2009
Collingwood 2010

But the thread-starter would never ask this because he would be forced to choose which Brisbane team was the best and two of the Brisbane teams wouldn't get votes. The reality is, that none of the three Brisbane teams would deserve to win such a poll, but if a biased person WANTED to choose Brisbane, he would have to choose one of them, meaning two of them couldn't get votes.

So, that's why he would never do such a thread. He is deliberately designing the current thread in such a way as to get 4 years worth of Brisbane votes in one category to boost the total.

So, go on Dom PC... ask who was the better premiership team and set it out in 11 options from 2000-2010.

And if you want, do the "era" thread too. I won't be voting for Essendon on that because I'm not biased. I'd vote for Brsbane as the most successful because they won more premierships and WERE more successful (unless Geelong wins on Saturday)

But that doesn't mean that any of those 3 Brisbane teams could get close to Essendon of 2000 in a head-to-head match. How could a 17-5 Brisbane team in 2001 with a percentage of 127% get within 5 goals of Essendon 2000 at their best? Essendon of 2000 was simply unstoppable

Brisbane as a club might have kept on winning flags, but they never finished top of the ladder and they never totally dominated in the finals (not like Essendon did in 2000). They were never that good, really.

Yep, I agree Dan. Brisbane for me as well.

 

[Dom PC]

Dan seriously...

The poll asks who had the better team at its peak during each period of dominance. Fair question if you ask me. I think your now just inventing an argument against me for making this poll; which certianly is asked without any bias.

 

[Awsomeprankfarva]

I said brisbane. But I think Geelong are a very very very close 2nd. With Essendon sort of close to Geelong at 2nd but not that close.

 

[Dan26]

Dan seriously...

The poll asks who had the better team at its peak during each period of dominance. Fair question if you ask me. I think your now just inventing an argument against me for making this poll; which certianly is asked without any bias.

Don't give me that spin. If you wanted to know which team was better at it's peak, you would have listed individual years.

You didn't do this - you listed eras.

You know if you asked which was the better team: Ess 2000, Bris 2001, Brisn 2002, Bris 2003 etc, then your Brisbane vote would be split three ways.

Everyone knows Essendon's best in 2000 was a better standard of football than anything Brisbane produced in any of thier flag years. When did Brisbane ever have a percentage of 163.8% for f***s sake?

Essendon 2000 and Geelong of 2007 are much, much closer. There is not as much between those teams. Geelong had a percentage of over 160% from 25 games in 2007.

Brisbane of 2001 (to pick one year) were miles behind Geelong of 2007 and Essendon of 2000. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about football, or didn't watch any of those sides play.

To even think, let alone suggest that Brisbane of 2001 would get close to Essendon of 2000 (let alone win) is mind-blowingly ignorant and incredibly stupid. Essendon was unbeatable that year. What would such an idiotically biased and stupid opinion possibly be based on???

 

[HurleyTheFuture]

Geelong

 

[Gazza_11]

Everyone knows Essendon's best in 2000 was a better standard of football than anything Brisbane produced in any of thier flag years. When did Brisbane ever have a percentage of 163.8% for f***s sake?

Essendon's percentage in 2000 was 159.1%, not 163.8%.

Which is lower than Geelong's 161.84% in 2008 and Collingwood's 167.66% this year.

 

[Awsomeprankfarva]

Don't give me that spin. If you wanted to know which team was better at it's peak, you would have listed individual years.

You didn't do this - you listed eras.

You know if you asked which was the better team: Ess 2000, Bris 2001, Brisn 2002, Bris 2003 etc, then your Brisbane vote would be split three ways.

Everyone knows Essendon's best in 2000 was a better standard of football than anything Brisbane produced in any of thier flag years. When did Brisbane ever have a percentage of 163.8% for f***s sake?

Essendon 2000 and Geelong of 2007 are much, much closer. There is not as much between those teams. Geelong had a percentage of over 160% from 25 games in 2007.

Brisbane of 2001 (to pick one year) were miles behind Geelong of 2007 and Essendon of 2000. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know anything about football, or didn't watch any of those sides play.

To even think, let alone suggest that Brisbane of 2001 would get close to Essendon of 2000 (let alone win) is mind-blowingly ignorant and incredibly stupid. What would such an idiotically biased and stupid opinion possibly be based on???

% means nothing in the GF Dan.

GF's are the deal breakers for you here Dan. Both Geelong and Brisbane had very very simmilar teams for their premierships. So they must have been pretty bloody good to make all those grand finals and win most of them.

I think its unfair that you laugh at the idea of brisbane's 01 premiership team beating your essendon team of 2000 when only 1 year later they beat you fair and square in the GF. I just watched a replay of that 2001 GF today actully, Brisbane played extremely well in that 2nd half. They certainly weren't an easy beat premiership team that year.

After watching J Brown in that game, I've decided that he has under achieved in his career. Guess injuries and suspension really got in his way of kicking an extra 200 odd goals and 1 or 2 more AA selections... this is for another tread I think

 

[Dan26]

% means nothing in the GF Dan.

A teams percentage over a season is the best indicator of quality because it shows what a team scores in relation to the opposition.

GF's are the deal breakers for you here Dan.

Essendon of 2000 won the premiership. They can't do anyore than that. What else are they supposed to do? Win 3 premierships in one year?

Essendon of 2000 was quite simply the best team to have ever played the sport of Aussie Rules. Try mounting an argument against it. What can you say? In 2000, they did everything that a team could possibly do in order to be the best ever. Yes, they really were THAT good.

Both Geelong and Brisbane had very very simmilar teams for their premierships. So they must have been pretty bloody good to make all those grand finals and win most of them.

Of course they were good. it was a wonderful era for both clubs. But none of the teams that Brisbane produced in that era were on the same planet as Essendon of 2000.

I think its unfair that you laugh at the idea of brisbane's 01 premiership team beating your essendon team of 2000 when only 1 year later they beat you fair and square in the GF.

What he hell has that got to do with anything? One year eralier in 2000, Essendon beat Brisbane in the wet at the Gabba by 64 points. What Brisbane did to Essendon in 2001 has got NOTHING to do with how good the Essendon team in 2000 was.

It's like me claiming that Brisbane of 2001 was shit because Essendon beat them by 64 points the year before. That's essentially what you are saying.

Brisbane played extremely well in that 2nd half. They certainly weren't an easy beat premiership team that year.

Of course they were a very good team. But as far as premiership teams go, they were normal. 17 wins 5 losses, percenatge of 127%, second on the ladder. They had the 2nd-best attack and 6th best defence. They were okay. A normal premiership team.

But to suggest they would have even got close to Essendon of 2000 at their best is absolutely laughable. Why would anyone think that??? What would they base such a stupid opinion on??

 

[Hipster Doofus]

Dan........just give up

 

[Dan26]

Dan........just give up

If people keep talking shit, I will not stop. I will beat them with logic, objectivity and common-sense. I'm good at that.

You should back me up, instead of sitting here reading their tripe.

 

[TheBoyWhoLived]

he will not stop until the last man has fallen.

 

[spendles]

I'd have to say Geelong 07.
That side won two finals by 100+ points.

 

[Wetdog]

Essendon of 2000 couldn't have been that good. We beat them.

But seriously...

You can't compare teams in different years. It is an impossibility with different players, rules, standard of competition and various other factors.

To be honest I think a Brisbane of 2001, 2002 or 2003 could beat an Essendon side of 2000. Or the Geelong side of 2007 could beat an Essendon side of 2000. or the Collingwood side of 2010. Or Vice Versa.

They are all great sides with champion players and the capabilities of beating any team on their given day. To say that any one team is miles above the others is absurd.

 

[BlackCaviar]

If people keep talking shit, I will not stop. I will beat them with logic, objectivity and common-sense. I'm good at that.

You should back me up, instead of sitting here reading their tripe.

hey dan hate to tell you mate
that 2000 team got done the year after in the gf ,does not help you case
biggest choking of any good team
ur dreaming wake up bombers flopped it after a one off season

 

[justlookingaround]

hey dan hate to tell you mate
that 2000 team got done the year after in the gf ,does not help you case
biggest choking of any good team
ur dreaming wake up bombers flopped it after a one off season

Don't even bother replying to that post, Dan.

 

[Teffy]

Why is Essendon even in this poll?

Brisbane, just.

 

[WN123]

Stupid poll. The only way you could possibly get a reasonable comparison is to compare Brisbane in say 2003 to Geeoong in 2007 to Essendon in 2000.
Even then peoples perceptions are clouded (perhaps rightly so) by the fact that Brisbane won three premierships. Essendon were better in a single year, Brisbane deserve to be remembered as a better team because of their sustained excellence.

BTW none of these teams even approach Hawthorn in the 80's.