How good were West Coast in 1992 when they won the flag?

[joe444]

If we'd decided to play Ablett as a full forward that season, the question may not even be posed.

In short, they were ok. Hardly a blow-em-away candidate for one of the greats.

Finished 4th, decent but not exciting percentage. Benefitted from a bizarre finals system which allowed them to finish 4th and get a week off by beating 5th, all whilst Collingwood (3rd) get eliminated in a thriller.

Judging from some of the comments on here, I'd say they're in danger of being one of the more overrated premiership teams going around. Kudos for breaking through.

1994? Now you have my attention.

 

[_Mike_]

1992 had a pretty even top 6 with a difference of 8 points between 1st & 6th. Eagles finished 4th 1 win behind the Cats, Dogs, and Pies

WCE in 94 were at their peak

 

[Hoops]

I just remember that West Coast side all being ripped (and tanned) compared to the Victorian sides.

 

[demondavey]

They were good. Highly motivated after 1991. Really well coached with a great line up of stars. Strange finals system with 2 EF first up but I don’t mind it. WC beat Geelong twice that finals series.

Very good side to win from 4th against a Geelong side that was really good. Hawthorn gave them an almighty test in the EF as well and Geelong kicked out to a good lead in GF.

They were even better in 94 evidenced by what they did to Melbourne and Geelong in the PF and GF. Hard to believe Essendon only got one premiership that decade, we saw some really great sides. Footscray were also really underrated that decade and had the wood on the Eagles. Eagles were lucky they didn’t run into them in 92 and 94. Bulldogs missed out on 97.

 

[joe444]

PS. The finals system warped everything.

Eagles finish 4th, get a home final and a week off without playing the two teams above them.

We never got to see them against St Kilda in a final with Lockett in full flight.


To repeat - the 92 mob were all ripped and tanned, sure, but one of the best is laughable. 94, with the players noticeably less ripped, untanned but much fitter, is your candidate for that.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

If we'd decided to play Ablett as a full forward that season, the question may not even be posed.

In short, they were ok. Hardly a blow-em-away candidate for one of the greats.

Finished 4th, decent but not exciting percentage. Benefitted from a bizarre finals system which allowed them to finish 4th and get a week off by beating 5th, all whilst Collingwood (3rd) get eliminated in a thriller.

Judging from some of the comments on here, I'd say they're in danger of being one of the more overrated premiership teams going around. Kudos for breaking through.

1994? Now you have my attention.

Eagles got a week off after beating Geelong in week 2 of the semis to get to the grand final.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

They were good. Highly motivated after 1991. Really well coached with a great line up of stars. Strange finals system with 2 EF first up but I don’t mind it. WC beat Geelong twice that finals series.

Very good side to win from 4th against a Geelong side that was really good. Hawthorn gave them an almighty test in the EF as well and Geelong kicked out to a good lead in GF.

They were even better in 94 evidenced by what they did to Melbourne and Geelong in the PF and GF. Hard to believe Essendon only got one premiership that decade, we saw some really great sides. Footscray were also really underrated that decade and had the wood on the Eagles. Eagles were lucky they didn’t run into them in 92 and 94. Bulldogs missed out on 97.

Eagles wouldnt of had a problem with footscray. Smashed them at subi then got smashed at the western oval in the mud. mcg they took care of the cats twice who were better than the dogs. Cats thumped bulldogs twice in those finals. 94 footscray weren't even close to wce. Eagles beat them easily home and away.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Kemp was 1994 Norm Smith.
Matera 1992

Both Mark Bairstows direct opponents

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Eaglesin 92 started slow due to injuries. Lost 3 games early on to Sydney, Geelong and Fitzroy and drew with Brisbane. Beat Brisbane by 131 points later that season and only lost another 3 games for the season two late on to saints and dogs. I don't think there was that much difference in 94 if any at all. With a full team they don't lose to Sydney and Fitzroy.

1992 15 wins 6 losses 1 draw
1994 16 wins 6 losses

We only lost by two points to them at subi after finishing 8th. MCguane dropped mark at the end to maybe win it.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

PS. The finals system warped everything.

Eagles finish 4th, get a home final and a week off without playing the two teams above them.

We never got to see them against St Kilda in a final with Lockett in full flight.
View attachment 2395651

To repeat - the 92 mob were all ripped and tanned, sure, but one of the best is laughable. 94, with the players noticeably less ripped, untanned but much fitter, is your candidate for that.

What do u mean they played Geelong in week 2 of the finals in the semi. Then got the week off as they went to the GF.

 

[juice t]

Eaglesin 92 started slow due to injuries. Lost 3 games early on to Sydney, Geelong and Fitzroy and drew with Brisbane. Beat Brisbane by 131 points later that season and only lost another 3 games for the season two late on to saints and dogs. I don't think there was that much difference in 94 if any at all. With a full team they don't lose to Sydney and Fitzroy.

1992 15 wins 6 losses 1 draw
1994 16 wins 6 losses

We only lost by two points to them at subi after finishing 8th. MCguane dropped mark at the end to maybe win it.

It was at the WACA
But your point stands

 

[joe444]

What do u mean they played Geelong in week 2 of the finals in the semi. Then got the week off as they went to the GF.

I meant that by beating fifth, they leapfrogged 2nd and 3rd and got a right to the week off without playing them. One of them even got eliminated (3rd). Not their fault that the system was nonsense.

I know only too well about the second semi; remember that game too well.

 

[joe444]

Think of that system this way:

Geelong and Footscray best two teams clearly. They play each other and Geelong win. Meanwhile West Coast 4th beat 5th and on the back of that result alone are now ranked second and, Geelong, already first and having beaten second, are exactly in the same position they were the week before.

Did they get to suddenly play in a second semi by beating second? No. Third? No. By beating 5th. Sheesh.

What a nightmare of a system. The system in '98 that allowed the Crows to lose the first final (5th) and still keep playing was just as ridiculous.

Were the Eagles of 92 deserving of a flag? Sure. One of the best ever? I get the feeling some of the people making that opinion weren't even born, let alone attend the games.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

I meant that by beating fifth, they leapfrogged 2nd and 3rd and got a right to the week off without playing them. One of them even got eliminated (3rd). Not their fault that the system was nonsense.

I know only too well about the second semi; remember that game too well.

Finished 4th

 

[joe444]

Finished 4th

Yep. Beat 5th.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Think of that system this way:

Geelong and Footscray best two teams clearly. They play each other and Geelong win. Meanwhile West Coast 4th beat 5th and on the back of that result alone are now ranked second and, Geelong, already first and having beaten second, are exactly in the same position they were the week before.

Did they get to suddenly play in a second semi by beating second? No. Third? No. By beating 5th. Sheesh.

What a nightmare of a system. The system in '98 that allowed the Crows to lose the first final (5th) and still keep playing was just as ridiculous.

Were the Eagles of 92 deserving of a flag? Sure. One of the best ever? I get the feeling some of the people making that opinion weren't even born, let alone attend the games.

Yep bad finals system. I think only 2 points separated 4th from 1st though.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Yep. Beat 5th.

6th actually lol.

 

[joe444]

1997/98 is the system that gets me the most though.

Geelong finished 2nd? Lost? How about you go play Adelaide IN ADELAIDE even though they are lower than you.

Adelaide finished 5th? Got wooped in the first week? Well, it's your luck day because UNDER THIS STUPID SYSTEM YOU ARE NOT ELIMINATED! Off you go - win a flag.

Good on the Crows for two famous wins, btw. But man oh man. That final 8 system version 1. Argh.

 

[iameviljez]

Both Mark Bairstows direct opponents

Don't be silly, no midfielder in the Blight era had a direct opponent!

Toby was one of our best that day AFAIK, just Matera was better.

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

Probably the best defence I have ever seen with Jakovich, McKenna, McIntosh, Worsfold, Hart and Waterman through 92 and 94. Probably only Geelong 07-11 comes close.

Watching Matera and Mainwaring patrolling the wings was a thing of beauty.

92 hurt. We had a gun attack and that Eagle defence just shut us down. We had a few cracks afterwards but after Stoneham's injury we were never as potent as in 92. 93 was a ballsup us well. How me missed the six (pfft) I'll never know. 20 Round season GAGF! As you can see i've moved on LOL.

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

1997/98 is the system that gets me the most though.

Geelong finished 2nd? Lost? How about you go play Adelaide IN ADELAIDE even though they are lower than you.

Adelaide finished 5th? Got wooped in the first week? Well, it's your luck day because UNDER THIS STUPID SYSTEM YOU ARE NOT ELIMINATED! Off you go - win a flag.

Good on the Crows for two famous wins, btw. But man oh man. That final 8 system version 1. Argh.

We did get a home final we didn't deserve against the Lions though, that one should have been in Brisbane.

 

[iameviljez]

One really interesting point regarding Geelong in 1992:

We played the most recent few premiers (Collingwood and Hawthorn) + West Coast seven times that year, and only won one of those games, where Gary Ablett pulled a 5-goal 36-touch game out of his arse.

So, we bashed the living crap out of everyone below us, but could not match the best sides.

 

[Pavlovs Cat]

They were good. Highly motivated after 1991. Really well coached with a great line up of stars. Strange finals system with 2 EF first up but I don’t mind it. WC beat Geelong twice that finals series.

Very good side to win from 4th against a Geelong side that was really good. Hawthorn gave them an almighty test in the EF as well and Geelong kicked out to a good lead in GF.

They were even better in 94 evidenced by what they did to Melbourne and Geelong in the PF and GF. Hard to believe Essendon only got one premiership that decade, we saw some really great sides. Footscray were also really underrated that decade and had the wood on the Eagles. Eagles were lucky they didn’t run into them in 92 and 94. Bulldogs missed out on 97.

Don't think the opposition was as good in 94. Geelong limped into that Granny as we spent our tickets getting past Carlton and North. We got over 30 free kicks in the Prelim to rob the footy world of the West Coast v North Grand Final that the decade lacked.

 

[iameviljez]

We did get a home final we didn't deserve against the Lions though, that one should have been in Brisbane.

And our two West Coast GFs were played in our home state, despite WC being the best side in both years.

 

[iameviljez]

92 hurt. We had a gun attack and that Eagle defence just shut us down. We had a few cracks afterwards but after Stoneham's injury we were never as potent as in 92. 93 was a ballsup us well. How me missed the six (pfft) I'll never know. 20 Round season GAGF! As you can see i've moved on LOL.

Sure did, but when our own backline is Sean Simpson, Tim Darcy, Andrew Rogers, Ken Hinkley, Tim McGrath and Trevor Poole...

Hinkley and McGrath were excellent. Darcy was undersized, the other three were (with all due respect) not premiership-standard players.