Most underachieving teams?

[Meteoric Rise]

Good to see you agree with my ratings.

They are rankings not ratings.

I have no reason to challenge your rankings because they go absolutely nowhere in terms of supporting your ludicrous contention that Bulldogs 08-10 were clearly better than Bulldogs Premiership 16 team. There is not one thing you have posted that establishes the truth of that contention.

You seem to be trying to draw the focus of the discussion into something that is completely beside the point of what is being discussed. I guess because you know you backed yourself into an inescapable corner.

 

[Fadge]

They are rankings not ratings.

I have no reason to challenge your rankings because they go absolutely nowhere in terms of supporting your ludicrous contention that Bulldogs 08-10 were clearly better than Bulldogs Premiership 16 team. There is not one thing you have posted that establishes the truth of that contention.

You seem to be trying to draw the focus of the discussion into something that is completely beside the point of what is being discussed. I guess because you know you backed yourself into an inescapable corner.

You're the one who has backed themselves into an inescapable corner in refusing to acknowledge the best teams between 2008 and 2011 were classes above the best teams post 2015.

The fact you're refusing to rank, or rate the respective teams relatively, says a lot about the lack of reality in the verbal diarrhoea to spew on these forums.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You're the one who has backed themselves into an inescapable corner in refusing to acknowledge the best teams between 2008 and 2011 were classes above the best teams post 2015.

The fact you're refusing to rank, or rate the respective teams relatively, says a lot about the lack of reality in the verbal diarrhoea to spew on these forums.

Jesus you are struggling now Fadge.

"Refusing to acknowledge." - I already acknowledged the 2008-10 teams that BEAT Bulldogs by an average of 31 points in finals are likely better than the teams that LOST to 2016 Bulldogs by an average of 25 points in finals.

Further than that, I showed roughly how much better the first group had proven over the second group in the home and away seasons, around 2 goals per game on average.

According to you this is a refusal to acknowledge the first group of teams are better than the second group of teams. Lol, you are a mess.

The question we are discussing here is are the 2008-10 Bulldogs better than the 2016 Bulldogs.

The fact the 2016 Bulldogs beat 4 teams in finals that were miles better than the best team the 2008-10 Bulldogs ever beat in a final starts to give us a clue. The fact that even you have admitted the 2008-10 Bulldogs lost to at least one team that was weaker than at least one of the teams the 2016 beat pretty much seals the deal I would have thought.

So we are agreed on the essential facts. The difference is I draw the only reasonable conclusion from those facts, and you are trying to draw conclusions in denial of the facts. But I guess you wouldn't be Fadge if you didn't do that.

 

[Franc de Borges]

I think the Essendon 99-01 era is overrated.

99: Obviously should’ve made the GF, but no guarantee that they beat North who were hell bent on redeeming 98. It should be remembered that North beat an excellent Brisbane in the PF.

00: Dominant flag fuelled by the 99 PF failure and the inclusion of Hird and Lucas.

01: Lost the aura of invincibility during that season and barely scraped past a mediocre Hawthorn in the PF. On their last legs, ran into one of the best teams ever in the GF.

One flag from that era actually seems reasonable. Their failure to make anything serious of the team between 94-98 is arguably worse.

 

[Fadge]

The question we are discussing here is are the 2008-10 Bulldogs better than the 2016 Bulldogs.

The fact the 2016 Bulldogs beat 4 teams in finals that were miles better than the best team the 2008-10 Bulldogs ever beat in a final starts to give us a clue. The fact that even you have admitted the 2008-10 Bulldogs lost to at least one team that was weaker than at least one of the teams the 2016 beat pretty much seals the deal I would have thought.

You stick to your approach of analysing via stats sheets and ignoring a majority of the data available, and you'll continue to arrive at your ignorantly blatantly wrong conclusions.

Western Bulldogs 2008 to 2010:
2008 - Finished 3rd after home and away with a record of 15/1/6 and percentage of 118.7%. Ran into a Geelong team that year who lost one game and had a percentage of over 160, and emerging Hawthorn and St Kilda sides, who both showed how good they were in subsequent years. Lost to Geelong and Hawthorn in the finals series, whilst beating a 6th placed Sydney by 6 goals.
2009 - Finished 3rd after home and away with a record of 15/7 and percentage of 122.6%. Ran into Geelong and St. Kilda teams who lost a combined 7 matches between them across the full year (including finals), two of them being losses of dead rubbers to St. Kilda after they had locked away top spot. Also had an emerging Collingwood team finishing 4th, who would go on to show how good they were in 2010/11. Lost finals to those powerful St. Kilda and Geelong teams, who many would rate comfortably inside the top 10 individual teams since the turn of the century, by a combined margin of 21 points, comfortably accounting for Brisbane in the Semi-Final by 51 points.
2010 - Finished 4th after home and away with a record of 14/8 and percentage of 125.4%. Ran into Geelong in the middle of their dynasty, St. Kilda backing up from their outstanding/unlucky 2009 and Collingwood who were near unbeatable for the better part of two seasons. Western Bulldogs went 0 from 6 against these teams for the season, including 2 finals, as 98% of teams since the turn of the century also would have.
In summary - three top 4 finishes after home and away, three Preliminary Finals, but simply outclassed by some of the best teams we have seen since the turn of the century, in the strongest era we have seen in the history of the game.

Western Bulldogs 2016:
Finished 7th after home and away with a record of 15/7 and percentage of 115.4%. There were no super teams in this season - none that a reasonable person would rank anywhere near the aforementioned teams of the 2008 to 2010 era. So their worst record during home and away in the four seasons discussed - there's your starting point. One has to remember they were odds of $61 at the start of that finals series, and for very good reason. History states they defied the odds and saluted in every game, as underdogs, to break their premiership drought in amazing fashion.
Now let's look at the seasons either side of their premiership:
2015 - finished 6th and lost their Elimination Final to Adelaide;
2017 - finished 10th with a 50% win/loss rate and percentage under 100%.

It's as clear as day that when you consider the key data elements - all of them - the 2008 to 2010 Western Bulldogs side was superior to the Western Bulldogs team that went on an amazing four week run to win the premiership from 7th place, who were in every sense of the word 'average' outside of that finals run.

Implant the 2008 to 2010 Western Bulldogs side into the 2016 to 2021 era, and they would have more than one flag to their name. I know Richmond supporters don't want to hear or acknowledge that, but it is an inconvenient truth.

 

[garlic munchers]

Port for mine.

Primus, Cornes x 2, Wanganeen, Treadrea, 2x Burgoyne's, Lade, Francou were all A-graders in their prime. I'd argue Treadrea was the best individual player of the early 2000s and certainly the closest to Carey in terms of impact at CHF.

Some good solid citizens/former guns who were falling out of their prime in Dimma, Monty, Wakelin, Pickett & Dew.

It's just a shame their peak coincided with one of the greatest teams of all time.

WC?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

You stick to your approach of analysing via stats sheets and ignoring a majority of the data available, and you'll continue to arrive at your ignorantly blatantly wrong conclusions.

Western Bulldogs 2008 to 2010:
2008 - Finished 3rd after home and away with a record of 15/1/6 and percentage of 118.7%. Ran into a Geelong team that year who lost one game and had a percentage of over 160, and emerging Hawthorn and St Kilda sides, who both showed how good they were in subsequent years. Lost to Geelong and Hawthorn in the finals series, whilst beating a 6th placed Sydney by 6 goals.
2009 - Finished 3rd after home and away with a record of 15/7 and percentage of 122.6%. Ran into Geelong and St. Kilda teams who lost a combined 7 matches between them across the full year (including finals), two of them being losses of dead rubbers to St. Kilda after they had locked away top spot. Also had an emerging Collingwood team finishing 4th, who would go on to show how good they were in 2010/11. Lost finals to those powerful St. Kilda and Geelong teams, who many would rate comfortably inside the top 10 individual teams since the turn of the century, by a combined margin of 21 points, comfortably accounting for Brisbane in the Semi-Final by 51 points.
2010 - Finished 4th after home and away with a record of 14/8 and percentage of 125.4%. Ran into Geelong in the middle of their dynasty, St. Kilda backing up from their outstanding/unlucky 2009 and Collingwood who were near unbeatable for the better part of two seasons. Western Bulldogs went 0 from 6 against these teams for the season, including 2 finals, as 98% of teams since the turn of the century also would have.
In summary - three top 4 finishes after home and away, three Preliminary Finals, but simply outclassed by some of the best teams we have seen since the turn of the century, in the strongest era we have seen in the history of the game.

Western Bulldogs 2016:
Finished 7th after home and away with a record of 15/7 and percentage of 115.4%. There were no super teams in this season - none that a reasonable person would rank anywhere near the aforementioned teams of the 2008 to 2010 era. So their worst record during home and away in the four seasons discussed - there's your starting point. One has to remember they were odds of $61 at the start of that finals series, and for very good reason. History states they defied the odds and saluted in every game, as underdogs, to break their premiership drought in amazing fashion.
Now let's look at the seasons either side of their premiership:
2015 - finished 6th and lost their Elimination Final to Adelaide;
2017 - finished 10th with a 50% win/loss rate and percentage under 100%.

It's as clear as day that when you consider the key data elements - all of them - the 2008 to 2010 Western Bulldogs side was superior to the Western Bulldogs team that went on an amazing four week run to win the premiership from 7th place, who were in every sense of the word 'average' outside of that finals run.

Implant the 2008 to 2010 Western Bulldogs side into the 2016 to 2021 era, and they would have more than one flag to their name. I know Richmond supporters don't want to hear or acknowledge that, but it is an inconvenient truth.

Which of the following teams played better in the finals series:

2008 Bulldogs
2009 Bulldogs
2010 Bulldogs
2016 Bulldogs

How can a team be rated a better team than other teams who play better in finals?

If you beat one decent team in a final, it could possibly be a fluke of sorts. If you beat 2, that is becoming less likely. If you beat 4 decent teams, all who had clearly better home and away seasons than St Kilda 2010, who you think is a super team, you cannot fluke that.

You need to just take your defences down and acknowledge the Bulldogs 2008-10 did not come close to matching that. Not even debatable.

 

[Fadge]

Which of the following teams played better in the finals series:

2008 Bulldogs
2009 Bulldogs
2010 Bulldogs
2016 Bulldogs

How can a team be rated a better team than other teams who play better in finals?

Did the 2016 Bulldogs have to play the 2007 to 11 Cats? 2009/10 Saints? 2010 Magpies?

Unless that was the case, we ain't comparing apples with apples, and we have to be a lot more analytical in our assessment.

 

[Fadge]

If you beat 4 decent teams, all who had clearly better home and away seasons than St Kilda 2010, who you think is a super team, you cannot fluke that.

Here's where we come back to your stats sheet analysis.

Did West Coast 2016, Hawthorn 2016, GWS 2016 and Sydney 2016 have to play against Collingwood 2010 and Geelong 2010 during their home and away seasons?

 

[Warwick]

Did they lose to Brisbane in any final between 2001-04? None come to mind.

Port 2001-2007 is an interesting one. They beat Brisbane in the H&A regularly IIRC and backed it up in the 04 GF. They had a weird weak spot vs Collingwood, and we broke them twice in 02/03 which upset their runs both times. They were very unlucky on more than one occasion, did they match up well on other finalists? From my hazy memory they were good against Crows, Swans, Eagles etc at that time. Could be wrong though.

I think they had a fair list and a really good coach (and that strong self-belief), 2 flags in that era would seem more fitting, if not more. there was a weakness in Victoria at the time until Geelong's Dank era side rolled into town, so non Vic sides actually had a chance despite the clear Vic bias in the scheduling.

Power 2001 - 2004. Everyone knows that can remember back then that team should of won two. Primus & Fracou went down & Stevens nick'd off & they still kicked ass. They were better than Brissy most the time, just not when it mattered.

Eagles 2005 - 2007 ...... Judd & Kerr were only 24 when s**t hit the fan, that team had so much scope for improvement.

Such a myth. Same as this furphy that we couldn’t beat West Coast or Sydney during those years.

Our record against Port was 6-4 our way (including 2 final wins) in 2001-2004.

Obviously the GF loss was the most important but you see this thinking regularly.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Here's where we come back to your stats sheet analysis.

Did West Coast 2016, Hawthorn 2016, GWS 2016 and Sydney 2016 have to play against Collingwood 2010 and Geelong 2010 during their home and away seasons?

Did the 2016 Bulldogs have to play the 2007 to 11 Cats? 2009/10 Saints? 2010 Magpies?

Unless that was the case, we ain't comparing apples with apples, and we have to be a lot more analytical in our assessment.

What difference does that make exactly?

You seem to be arguing a team(Bulldogs 08-10) is automatically a super team because they played 13 games against teams who won more than 15 home and away games in the season and returned a record of 2w 11l.


The 2 wins were home and away matches.

Amongst the losses were margins of -101, -62, -61, -51, -45, -29 -28. So they weren't even competitive in 7 of the 13 matches.

Their record against all teams with 15 home and away wins or less:

45w 1d 16l

They won 73% of their matches without the games against the best 2 home and away teams each season counted. 73% equates to around 16 wins in a 22 team season. This is with the matches against every team who won over 15 home and away wins omitted.

Swans, Eagles, Hawks, Giants 2016 all did at least that well even when we include games against teams who won over 15 home and away games. And these were the teams Bulldogs 2016 beat by an average of 25 points in finals, 2 of those matches interstate away, and another on the opponent's regular home ground.

So what you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all when tested against known facts.

 

[Fadge]

You seem to be arguing a team(Bulldogs 08-10) is automatically a super team because they played 13 games against teams who won more than 15 home and away games in the season and returned a record of 2w 11l.


The 2 wins were home and away matches.

Amongst the losses were margins of -101, -62, -61, -51, -45, -29 -28. So they weren't even competitive in 7 of the 13 matches.

I never said Bulldogs 2008 to 2010 were a 'Super Team'. But they didn't need to be a 'Super Team' to have won multiple flags in the post 2015 era, where the better teams were nowhere near the quality of Geelong 2007-11, Saints 2009/10 and Collingwood 2010/11.

And you've proven my point precisely by pointing out their records against the great teams of that era.

I also love how you state 28 and 29 point margins were non-competitive. Classic Stats Sheet Analysis. I wonder what your threshold is for a game to be 'non-competitive'?

 

[Cyclops]

Such a myth. Same as this furphy that we couldn’t beat West Coast or Sydney during those years.

Our record against Port was 6-4 our way (including 2 final wins) in 2001-2004.

Obviously the GF loss was the most important but you see this thinking regularly.

Thanks for the correction, part of what I was saying was based on that view, so it's good you've set that straight. I certainly don't underate that Lions side.

I think Port often (always?) finished higher on the ladder in those years 02-04? Which given you were both battling even more severe #VICBIAS than now was pretty good by both sides.

My overall view is Port should have made those GFs rather than my courageous but somewhat fortunate mob, and arguably missed out on a flag two.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I never said Bulldogs 2008 to 2010 were a 'Super Team'. But they didn't need to be a 'Super Team' to have won multiple flags in the post 2015 era, where the better teams were nowhere near the quality of Geelong 2007-11, Saints 2009/10 and Collingwood 2010/11.

And you've proven my point precisely by pointing out their records against the great teams of that era.

I also love how you state 28 and 29 point margins were non-competitive. Classic Stats Sheet Analysis. I wonder what your threshold is for a game to be 'non-competitive'?

Lol Bulldogs 2008-10, how would they go in the post 2015 era?

Now let's see. Let's go with your misguided theory for a moment and say the top 2 teams in all those seasons were some sort of super teams. And let's normalise the Bulldogs records against them to let's say 50-50 win/loss. So their overall record in this era would be 52w and 23l if the top 2 each year weren't such "super" teams, just normal top 2 teams.

That would get Western Bulldogs a record of roughly 15 wins and 7 losses per season on average. So let's give them 15 home and away wins each season if they didn't have to play your "super" teams, and they just had to play against these lesser top 2 teams from 2015 onwards. And let's hypothetically transport that Bulldogs team into the post 2015 era and see how that record stacks up.

Teams finishing 15 wins or better:

2016 Swans(151%) Cats(144%) Giants(143%) Hawks(119%) Crows(138%) Eagles(130%) Bulldogs(115%)
2017 Cats(117%) Crows(136%) Tigers(118%) Giants(115%)
2018 Tigers(136%) Eagles(121%) Hawks(120%) Magpies(120%)
2019 Cats(136%) Lions(118%) Tigers(114%) Magpies(118%) Eagles(112%)
*2020 Power(136%) Lions(125%) Tigers(130%) Cats(137%) Eagles(117%)
2021 Demons(131%) Power(126%) Cats(127%) Lions(133%) Bulldogs(133%) Swans(120%)
2022 Cats(144%) Demons(131%) Swans(128%) Magpies(104%) Dockers(117%) Lions(119%)
2023 Magpies(127%) Lions(123%) Power(113%) Demons(125%)

*adjusted to 22 game season

No less than 41 teams in the last 8 seasons have been good enough to compile a home and away record roughly as good or better than what we can reasonably suppose the Bulldogs would have achieved had they met with normal top 2 teams rather than your supposed "super" teams.


Clubs that appear on that list at least 3 times(as the Bulldogs 08-10 did) were:

6 Cats
5 Lions
4 Eagles Magpies Tigers
3 Swans Demons Power (Bulldogs 08-10 119%, 123%, 125%)
2 Bulldogs(2016-23)

8 clubs finished 3 times or more with a home and away record roughly equal to or better than the bulldogs 08-10.

21 of the above teams were able to amass a percentage as good or better than the best Bulldogs 08-10 percentage.

23 teams in all finished with a percentage roughly as good or better than the best Bulldogs 08-10 percentage.

And from all of that only one single team was good enough to win more than 1 Premiership in this 8 year era.

Of the 6 teams that won at least 1 premiership in this 8 year era:

• 5 finished more seasons on at least 15 wins than did the Dogs 08-10 would have had they not met the "super" teams
• Melbourne has done it 3 times so far, as have Power, and Swans, equal to the 08-10 Bulldogs
• Current era Bulldogs are the only Premier to do it less than 08-10 Bulldogs
• All Premiers have finished at least 1 home and away season with a clearly higher percentage than 08-10 Bulldogs best percentage
• Several have done that multiple times.
• 3 clubs have amassed home and away records roughly the equal or better than Bulldogs 08-10 without winning a Premiership, and in Power's case without even making a Grand Final

If Bulldogs 08-10 were only good enough to average around 15 home and away wins per seasons(after adjusting for the absence of the best 2 teams in each of their seasons) and they compiled that record in a competition against some clubs with under-resourced football departments....

What makes you think they would do any better pitted against 17 fully funded football departments? Many, many teams with stronger home and away records than Bulldogs 08-10 have won zero or 1 premierships in the post 2015 era.

Your super era theory is a mess. It is a mess because you started with your answer and tried to make the facts fit your answer. There is absolutely nothing substantial to support your contention that Bulldogs 08-10 team would have won multiple flags in the current era. There is very little to even suggest they would have won even one flag. They might have been a chance to take Collingwood's 2023 gimp flag, that's about it.

 

[Fadge]

Lol Bulldogs 2008-10, how would they go in the post 2015 era?

Now let's see. Let's go with your misguided theory for a moment and say the top 2 teams in all those seasons were some sort of super teams. And let's normalise the Bulldogs records against them to let's say 50-50 win/loss. So their overall record in this era would be 52w and 23l if the top 2 each year weren't such "super" teams, just normal top 2 teams.

That would get Western Bulldogs a record of roughly 15 wins and 7 losses per season on average. So let's give them 15 home and away wins each season if they didn't have to play your "super" teams, and they just had to play against these lesser top 2 teams from 2015 onwards. And let's hypothetically transport that Bulldogs team into the post 2015 era and see how that record stacks up.

Teams finishing 15 wins or better:

2016 Swans(151%) Cats(144%) Giants(143%) Hawks(119%) Crows(138%) Eagles(130%) Bulldogs(115%)
2017 Cats(117%) Crows(136%) Tigers(118%) Giants(115%)
2018 Tigers(136%) Eagles(121%) Hawks(120%) Magpies(120%)
2019 Cats(136%) Lions(118%) Tigers(114%) Magpies(118%) Eagles(112%)
*2020 Power(136%) Lions(125%) Tigers(130%) Cats(137%) Eagles(117%)
2021 Demons(131%) Power(126%) Cats(127%) Lions(133%) Bulldogs(133%) Swans(120%)
2022 Cats(144%) Demons(131%) Swans(128%) Magpies(104%) Dockers(117%) Lions(119%)
2023 Magpies(127%) Lions(123%) Power(113%) Demons(125%)

*adjusted to 22 game season

No less than 41 teams in the last 8 seasons have been good enough to compile a home and away record roughly as good or better than what we can reasonably suppose the Bulldogs would have achieved had they met with normal top 2 teams rather than your supposed "super" teams.


Clubs that appear on that list at least 3 times(as the Bulldogs 08-10 did) were:

6 Cats
5 Lions
4 Eagles Magpies Tigers
3 Swans Demons Power (Bulldogs 08-10 119%, 123%, 125%)
2 Bulldogs(2016-23)

8 clubs finished 3 times or more with a home and away record roughly equal to or better than the bulldogs 08-10.

21 of the above teams were able to amass a percentage as good or better than the best Bulldogs 08-10 percentage.

23 teams in all finished with a percentage roughly as good or better than the best Bulldogs 08-10 percentage.

And from all of that only one single team was good enough to win more than 1 Premiership in this 8 year era.

Of the 6 teams that won at least 1 premiership in this 8 year era:

• 5 finished more seasons on at least 15 wins than did the Dogs 08-10 would have had they not met the "super" teams
• Melbourne has done it 3 times so far, as have Power, and Swans, equal to the 08-10 Bulldogs
• Current era Bulldogs are the only Premier to do it less than 08-10 Bulldogs
• All Premiers have finished at least 1 home and away season with a clearly higher percentage than 08-10 Bulldogs best percentage
• Several have done that multiple times.
• 3 clubs have amassed home and away records roughly the equal or better than Bulldogs 08-10 without winning a Premiership, and in Power's case without even making a Grand Final

If Bulldogs 08-10 were only good enough to average around 15 home and away wins per seasons(after adjusting for the absence of the best 2 teams in each of their seasons) and they compiled that record in a competition against some clubs with under-resourced football departments....

What makes you think they would do any better pitted against 17 fully funded football departments? Many, many teams with stronger home and away records than Bulldogs 08-10 have won zero or 1 premierships in the post 2015 era.

Your super era theory is a mess. It is a mess because you started with your answer and tried to make the facts fit your answer. There is absolutely nothing substantial to support your contention that Bulldogs 08-10 team would have won multiple flags in the current era. There is very little to even suggest they would have won even one flag. They might have been a chance to take Collingwood's 2023 gimp flag, that's about it.

Analysis by Stats Sheet, again.

Boring, predictable and wrong.

Yawn.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Analysis by Stats Sheet, again.

Boring, predictable and wrong.

Yawn.

Yes including relevant facts in any assessment is well known to irritate you Fadge.

Tell me though, how do you arrive at your understanding of how one team is better than another across eras if not by using the actual performance of the teams to judge it?

 

[Fadge]

Yes including relevant facts in any assessment is well known to irritate you Fadge.

Tell me though, how do you arrive at your understanding of how one team is better than another across eras if not by using the actual performance of the teams to judge it?

My analysis isn't as simple as basing it on the assumption that the best teams in any given era are of exactly the same quality as the best teams in a different era.

But that can only be understood and appreciated if you watch a lot of football, including games involving teams other than your own, so I wouldn't expect you to understand the concept...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

My analysis isn't as simple as basing it on the assumption that the best teams in any given era are of exactly the same quality as the best teams in a different era.

But that can only be understood and appreciated if you watch a lot of football, including games involving teams other than your own, so I wouldn't expect you to understand the concept...

So when you are watching these games, exactly how do you decide one team is better than another where the two teams never play against each other....without basing it around how the team actually performed?

And how exactly do you work out by what margin the best teams in one era are better than the best teams in another era if not by reference to how those teams actually performed?

 

[Fadge]

So when you are watching these games, exactly how do you decide one team is better than another where the two teams never play against each other....without basing it around how the team actually performed?

And how exactly do you work out by what margin the best teams in one era are better than the best teams in another era if not by reference to how those teams actually performed?

Fagic.

How do you know that when Roger Federer comes along, Lleyton Hewitt (a dual major winner and number 1 player in the world for the better part of 2 to 3 years) will struggle to win another major? I didn't need to wait for the fullness of time to see that Federer was miles ahead of where Hewitt's game could get him.

I understand how you can't comprehend it... it's not something that's available on a stats sheet...

 

[boncer34]

I think the Essendon 99-01 era is overrated.

99: Obviously should’ve made the GF, but no guarantee that they beat North who were hell bent on redeeming 98. It should be remembered that North beat an excellent Brisbane in the PF.

00: Dominant flag fuelled by the 99 PF failure and the inclusion of Hird and Lucas.

01: Lost the aura of invincibility during that season and barely scraped past a mediocre Hawthorn in the PF. On their last legs, ran into one of the best teams ever in the GF.

One flag from that era actually seems reasonable. Their failure to make anything serious of the team between 94-98 is arguably worse.

Beating them twice by 5 goals earlier in the season is a good sign they were a pretty good chance.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Fagic.

How do you know that when Roger Federer comes along, Lleyton Hewitt (a dual major winner and number 1 player in the world for the better part of 2 to 3 years) will struggle to win another major? I didn't need to wait for the fullness of time to see that Federer was miles ahead of where Hewitt's game could get him.

I understand how you can't comprehend it... it's not something that's available on a stats sheet...

Lol, that explains it all. An admission you have no method and in reality nfi whether a team from one era is better than a team from another era.

Federer and Hewitt are in no way an example of that, they only played against each other 27 times. Laughable explanation.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I think the Essendon 99-01 era is overrated.

99: Obviously should’ve made the GF, but no guarantee that they beat North who were hell bent on redeeming 98. It should be remembered that North beat an excellent Brisbane in the PF.

00: Dominant flag fuelled by the 99 PF failure and the inclusion of Hird and Lucas.

01: Lost the aura of invincibility during that season and barely scraped past a mediocre Hawthorn in the PF. On their last legs, ran into one of the best teams ever in the GF.

One flag from that era actually seems reasonable. Their failure to make anything serious of the team between 94-98 is arguably worse.

Absolute nonsense

That stupid finals system that the AFL had in the 90s - played havoc with alot of years finals

Teams were getting thrashed in week 1 like Carlton that year - they should have been eliminated at that point - Carlton had no right to be not eliminated at that point

All that ridiculous finals system did was deny the public a great GF in Nth Melb vs the Dons

You go back to the 70s and 80s - well actually the late 60s - when Carlton were a powerhouse winning their 7 or 8 flags - the Blues allways finished very high up on the ladder , just imagine they had some crazy system back then when teams were losing in week 1 but getting a 2nd chance - then you might have ended up with different teams featuring in GFs - and that would have been utter nonsense , and thats what happened in several years final series in the 90s

 

[Fadge]

Lol, that explains it all. An admission you have no method and in reality nfi whether a team from one era is better than a team from another era.

Yeah, my Time Machine isn't quite ready to go yet.

But I'm working on it, it's not far away!

 

[Franc de Borges]

Absolute nonsense

That stupid finals system that the AFL had in the 90s - played havoc with alot of years finals

Teams were getting thrashed in week 1 like Carlton that year - they should have been eliminated at that point - Carlton had no right to be not eliminated at that point

All that ridiculous finals system did was deny the public a great GF in Nth Melb vs the Dons

You go back to the 70s and 80s - well actually the late 60s - when Carlton were a powerhouse winning their 7 or 8 flags - the Blues allways finished very high up on the ladder , just imagine they had some crazy system back then when teams were losing in week 1 but getting a 2nd chance - then you might have ended up with different teams featuring in GFs - and that would have been utter nonsense , and thats what happened in several years final series in the 90s

My point was that Essendon should’ve played North in 99, but there was no guarantee that they would’ve won the GF.

The finals system was poor, but if it was under current day rules then Essendon’s PF opponent would’ve been objectively harder than Carlton, who they failed to beat.

Strange post.

 

[Nugett]

The Hawks 83-92. Played finals during that 10 year period. Played 8 GF and only won 5. Lost to Melbourne in a close elimination game in 1990. Lost a close game at the WACA vs West Coast in 1992, were our only blemishes. Crapped the bed in 84 against Essendon, allowing them to over run us. Got demolished in 85 by Essendon. Carlton finishing on top of the ladder in 87 gave them the bye in a top 5 final, which gave them the advantage, of having a week off, before playing the semi final winner. So kudo’s for finishing on top.

That Hawthorn team with the talent they had at that time, should have made 10 grand finals and won at least 8, rather than 5.