Move the Essendon-Geelong match NOW !!!

[Dan26]

Grendel,

Your comments in your last post about Colonial stadium don't make sense.

Firstly it's a Geelong home game (You point that out), so even if Essendon had stayed at the MCG, this match would have been scheduled for Colonial anyway.

I wonder if Essendon had still been at the MCG whether you would have written what you did.(even with the Dons-Cats match at Colonial) I don't think so.

Essendon four biggest drawing home matches each year are scheduled for the MCG. These are matches against Collingwood, Carlton, Richmod and Geelong.

BUT, we don't play a "home" match against Geelong, so our next biggest drawing match is against St.Kilda. So, our home match against St.Kilda is at the MCG. No one could have foreseen that the Saints would have such a poor start.

I wish peeople would stop harping on about "lock-outs" at Colonial. It holds 52,000 people and is more than suitable for Essendon's smaller home games. However, the game against Geelong should not be at Colonial. That is common-sense

 

[Grendel]

Dan, what I mean by Essendon vs the rest of the comp and its new home base at colonical is that there is going to be (just read the dailys or watch the TV) bias towards getting in early, pre bookings and that it will favour the home side for whatever game is being played. I guess in short is that most feel Essendon (and I guess they have this right) will try and service only getting their supporters into the place and damn the oppostion, yet when it comes to larger games,ie the coll/carl type they (the Bombers) want to have their cake (colonical gold passes etc) and eat it (MCG sellouts 80,000 crowds) to.

In other words shaft the rest and we do as we please. Well if thats the case then I dont blame the other tenants of the ground shafting the Dons if they can make a bigger profit from a smaller crowd attendance at colonical.

Hope that makes some sort of sense (Non-sense maybe hahaha)

On the other topic about your boys, Dan you might have been following them for twenty years, well I started going to windy hill mid 70's and probably have seen more dons games than most who dont follow them.

few points on your side,
Fletcher currently (after ten rounds) best full back in league. If he does it for another five years, then yea I will rank him up against Langers,Martyn and the like.

Mid fielders, Baker was an enigmatic genius, damn you blokes for not leaving him in perth where he belonged. Without him I really dont know if you would have won either 84/5 thats how high I rate him.

Merrett against Lucas? Cmon Rog was fearsome back then and was young and mobile to boot.

Hird or Daniher? Hird probably class edge yet TD at one time or another was either the best full back,full forward,CHF,CHB in the league. Good as Hird is Daniher wasnt far behind.

Mercuri,Harvey, I give hares the nod from when he was a youngster tearaway, no fear and so ferocious with it. Injury killed him (and in that he and Dermie were so alike) but again from that side what a gun.

Flankers, blokes yet to play a hundred games against Foulds,Neagle (how much did he miss that brownlow by?) Hawker,Duckworth,Williams (so under rated) Ezard (better then than what Boris is right now) Heard, the tiger bloke whose name I cant remember,blonde, triple premiership player (dont you hate it when you cant remember names)!!! Oh and a bloke called Watson the best ruckrover of the decade, he was handy too!
Weston vs Wellman, my nod to Weston more versitile and I think a tad more the true CHB,Wellman I still thinks plays more like a flanker.
Your rucks, well Barnes doesnt even rate against Madden.
Salmon vs Lloyd, to close to call and only as you say,because fish was coming back from the knee. Alessio? Dont rate him, no heart when it counts, and not just last years prelim, seen him go missing to many times when the heats on.

No sorry Dan, until they win at least two flags they dont stand against them. They are showing indications of graetness in the team I agree but the same can be said for the 93 side and look what happened in that case.

Im using the dons back to back sides more to match up as Its an easier way to do it and that way I dont ger accused of to much Hawks bias.

Gee this is even bringing back bad memories for me, hope your happy now. I have been trying to repress this stuff for years

I just reckon that until the score is on the board you shouldnt get to hyped only nine rounds into it.

Hell this is scary I find im agreeing with Sheedy.

One last thing I couldnt leave, Wellman wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell against a fit 88/9 Brereton. Sorry nope no way. Dermie would chew him.

ps you have every right to your opinion though, I just dont think your giving due credit to your own blokes who brought two flags into your club,

cheers

Grendel

 

[servo]

Grendel!!!!!!

Your assessment of the two era's in Essendons recent past is phenomenal. I am trying to find a point I can disagree with you on ..................................................................still trying .................................................. nope cant find one.

Could add though that a number of coaches came out of that era. I cant realy see the right stuff in any of the current crop, cept maybe Hird, to follow that route.

 

[Dave]

I've stayed out of this love fest so far, but I thought I'd have my two cents worth, particularly given I saw nearly every dons game in 84/85 (ahh footy, helped me pass HSC and stay sane!!)

Originally posted by Grendel:
Mid fielders, Baker was an enigmatic genius, damn you blokes for not leaving him in perth where he belonged. Without him I really dont know if you would have won either 84/5 thats how high I rate him.

84 (I still get goose bumps watching THAT blind turn and goal) probably not, 85 definitely. We were far more even in 85 than the year before.

Merrett against Lucas? Cmon Rog was fearsome back then and was young and mobile to boot.

Though he only really dominated for a couple of years for us. Lucas to me is as mobile as Roger, and a far better kick (albeit on one side only!). Time will tell whether he's as durable

Hird or Daniher? Hird probably class edge yet TD at one time or another was either the best full back,full forward,CHF,CHB in the league. Good as Hird is Daniher wasnt far behind.

Hard to split. TD could hold down a key position, but Hird has more class.

Mercuri,Harvey, I give hares the nod from when he was a youngster tearaway, no fear and so ferocious with it. Injury killed him (and in that he and Dermie were so alike) but again from that side what a gun.

Bit like Hird v TD. One *all* class, the other almost as good but with more G&D than I've seen in anyone.

Ezard (better then than what Boris is right now)

Boris at his best was streets ahead of Ez. No contest. Now, he's better than Ezard was at the end of *his* career too.

Heard, the tiger bloke whose name I cant remember,blonde, triple premiership player (dont you hate it when you cant remember names)!!!

Yes! Bryan Wood.

Oh and a bloke called Watson the best ruckrover of the decade, he was handy too!

Fairly.

Weston vs Wellman, my nod to Weston more versitile and I think a tad more the true CHB,Wellman I still thinks plays more like a flanker.

Loses his footing too much for my liking, and often fumbles unless the ball comes to him cleanly

Your rucks, well Barnes doesnt even rate against Madden.

Nope, but there's a lack of top class ruckman compared to the eighties all round.

Salmon vs Lloyd, to close to call and only as you say,because fish was coming back from the knee.

Lloyd by a mile. The fact was Fish did do his knee, and was never quite the same afterwards, though this may have been due to other sides working out how to play him (it didn't pay to put your biggest player on him, as despite his size he was a *leading* full-forward).

Alessio? Dont rate him, no heart when it counts, and not just last years prelim, seen him go missing to many times when the heats on.

Dissapointing, he looked like he could be anything when he started. No confindence.

No sorry Dan, until they win at least two flags they dont stand against them. They are showing indications of graetness in the team I agree but the same can be said for the 93 side and look what happened in that case.

Agreed. Flags are what count. Nice analysis Grendel. Good win today against the cats too. Looking good.

cheers,

Dave


[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 06 May 2000).]

 

[Grendel]

Haha, thanks Dave, yeah I enjoyed the Cats game more that most re a certain poster in here who got under my skin just a little

Re: the Ezard/Boris match up. Boris far and away better footballer, I meant though ho he would go right now against Ezard at that stage. Boris is near the end, maybe one more year. While still very dangerous in bursts not what he was (thank god, you cant have it ALL, bombers)while Ezard in 84/5 was close to if not the best small goalsneak in the game.

Couple of other points, I matched up postion to postion where I could. You had some going class to grunt's (no offence). I just wanted to say Neagle was one of the classiest footballers ive seen. More that matches Merc's and Hirdy in that department and was a good ole maniac as a bonus thrown in.

Nice hard fought win over the Dee's from your mob. I reckon the type of win they needed to. Not just another walk over but having to give it all for 4 quarters and really fight it out all the way. Extra good to do it wihtout the praying mantis Fletcher down back too!

 

[Roos_for_2000]

Dan24,
Well done mate.
Read your letter to Mike Sheehan in the Sun, which was the first post of this thread.
Good onya. Scored a holiday too!

 

[Dan26]

Roos-for-2000,

Thanks mate. I actually wrote it a couple of weeks ago, so I didn't think it would get published, but then on Saturday I read it, so I was pretty happy. Still debating on whether to take the prize myself (a night's accomodation for 2 at Rockman's Regency Hotel valued at $375) or I may perhaps use it as a Mothers day present. Hey, we all know how much Sheedy loves Mothers day, don't we !! I havn't decided yet.

Grendel,

We could argue for hours about who had the better side, Essendon's 1985 or 2000 model, or perhaps Hawthorns 1988-89 sides, but I don't believe that Essendon necessarily has to win the Grand Final to prove they are the best.

Sure, the current side hasn't won a GF like the 84-85 sides, but I've said many times that the best team doesn't necessarily win the Grand Final. The years best team is found over 6 months, not 2 hours. Theortetically, if Essendon in 2000 went 22-0 with a percentage of 160, and had the best attack and the best defence, would they even need to win the Grand Final to confirm they are the best ? Of course not. Everyone, including you, would already know that they would have been the best team. Sure, they would absolutely love (as I would) to win the Grand Final, but the Grand Final is hardly the time to find the years best team. The years best team has already been proven.

To consistently win week in week out again and again by large margins, which therefore give you a huge percentage is the mark of a great team. Essendon is currently doing just that.

That comment you made is EXACTLY why I have kept going on and on about 'top spot deserves more recognition'. Top spot is simply harder to achieve. Certainly it's much more difficult than winning the Grand Final.

By the way, I'm not putting the 1985 side down at all. it was, quite rightly hailed as one of the greatest of all time. I'm simply saying that Essendon's 2000 model is just as deep on talent (if not more) and may be hailed as one of, if not the best ever team in any one individual year.

So what if Fletcher is only 24, and hasn't acheived as much as Martyn or Langford ? Coleman didn't acheive as much as Dunstall (in terms of games played) and Coleman made the team of the century. Going by that logic the team of the century would be made up of the 22 players who had played the most games. Fletcher AT THE MOMENT is absolutley killing it and is playing just as good as Langford at his best.

But it's too hard to argue this sort of stuff. It's so subjective and nothing can ever be proven. But it does make great conversation !

 

[Grendel]

No, Fletcher isnt playing as well as Langers at his best, simply because the quality of opposition isnt against him. Thats just a little biased hawktalk there

Its no fault of Fletcher that and good on him for beating what he has been against him. Who are they though? Not exactly the greatest full forwards going about right now. The best FF is down the other end from him. Even when you played us Thommo was missing
Thats where the subjectivity comes into it, who has he beat? Could he have beaten these players, the Lockett's/Dunstall's/Ablett's etc etc. He has been beaten by them in the past when he was younger so does that now reflect on him and say that he is now overrated?

No I dont think so, he has matured now and is a more rounded footballer, I think he would do well against them sometimes and be
beaten at other times. Subjectivity ahh what a word.

I agree that Coleman had a short career but in six seasons or so look at what he did, thats why he is so respected half a century later.
(By the way did you know that he first tried out with the Hawks the year before he went to the Bombers? They sent him home, god they must not have had any idea at all back then

Still Fletcher has only stood out for a half (outstanding) season so far, but, again who has he beat? Anthony Daniher was a gun full back for two years around 90/1 yet he isnt rated for those years as a great FB
nor should he be. Give Fletcher time, if injury stops him then look back and call it a tragedy like N.Daniher who would have ranked with Doull if he had been injury free. Buckenara if he hadn't of
done a knee, would have been equal to Gary Ablett without the muscle thats how good he could have been.

There are exceptions to every rule yet ability matched with time are pretty well what sets champions apart from the shooting stars. Jackovich (allen) might well have had the talent of a Lockett/Dunstall but was here for a moment then gone.


Re top spot and best teams, history will only judge on results. If you dont win it this year then they simply cannot be classed as a great team. The coasters had to wait for a year after the capitulation in 91 to
show they had the goods.

Geelong while having chances to be ranked with the great sides is now almost forgotten as they never delivered in 4 GF's.

North of the early eighties another such side that should have been great yet didnt even make a GF.

Not the time to argue top spot and its lack of recognition. I just feel that Essendon should look no further than last year and be focused on making sure that it doesn't happen again. If it does (fail) then for
any achievements made during the home and away will prove in the end to be for naught.

At the end of the year they will be judged on (sound like a preacher!) finals results.

ANYTHING less than the flag and they cannot be called a great side for they wont have delivered the ultimate prize to not only themselves, but to their (ie YOU) supporters, all that they should.

Greatness is all about results, win as many battles as you like but its who wins the war at the end that is crowned victoriousand is remembered by history as GREAT. Its not just how I see it I think the majority of people do to. Is it fair? Probably not but since when did fairness have anything to do with the AFL?

Back to my Hawk bias mode, we were the greatest ever in 88/9 and we would spank your bombers anytime. Dunstall/Brereton/Bucky/Hall/Curran
makes your forwards look second rate

ps (Had to bag you as Ive been getting hate mail from some people who reckon im a closet bomber)

pps and were coming back this year too!!! just wait until we get one or two more in the midfield, and Barry Young told us the secrets to beating you its just we didnt want to reveal it to early in the year.

Hawthorn 2000 Team of the New Millennium

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Grendel:
Back to my Hawk bias mode, we were the greatest ever in 88/9 and we would spank your bombers anytime.

Ok, send em back four years to play in '85.

Dunstall/Brereton/Bucky/Hall/Curran
makes your forwards look second rate

Curran? ROFLMAO!!! Curran hahahahahaha!!

 

[Grendel]

Allessio???

To sad a case to laugh, nearly commit myself when I see Wallis go forward though

ps Curran had a very good average in FINALS, about three a game, goals that is, not kicks ie see above..............


84/85 were the drawing board sketches

88/89 were the showroom model

 

[Dave]

Grendel,
yeah it was a good win, pushed all the way for the first time. To hang on after coming off the Brissie game was a good effort.

On your other troll , I'd say the only difference between our current forward line and the 88/89 would be Brereton at CHF, the Bastard!!

cheers,

Dave

P.S I'd put our '85 side up against any side, any day.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Grendel:
Haha, thanks Dave, yeah I enjoyed the Cats game more that most re a certain poster in here who got under my skin just a little

Yes, he/she/it has been rather quiet the last day or two.

Re Ezard/Boris, have a look at the '93 highlights, and you'll see Boris at his best was easily better than Ez. 52 goals in the season, which from memory Ezard never managed. Pretty much saved out arses in the prelim too.

As for the matchups, I had no problems with them, though the only player from that era with Hirdy's class was Watson. Neagle as good as he was, was *nowhere* near a match for Hirdy.

 

[Grendel]

Okay Dave, I will concede the Boris (who I always said was better, just he has aged thats all) Ezard debate.

Neagle didnt reach the heights he could have more through (rumour only this) his love for life outside of footy.

Actually the one guy I didnt mention who could turn it on was VanDers (speaking of enjoyment outside of footy)

Cool about the 85 side up against us in 89 though, put em up and we would knock em down

Ahh slanging matches, dont you love it

ps im even having a beer all thats missing is the pub to go with it!

 

[Dave]

Grendel,
yeah Vanders was fantastic. I'll never forget his comeback match against Richmond after he broke his neck. He was great to watch.

Merv from what I've heard didn't have many friends round the club, maybe now I know why!

As for '89, you'd TRY. Don't forget you only got over OUR '89 model by 6 goals, and that becuase we couldn't stop Dunstall. '85 Dons would've had '89 Hawks for brekky.

I'd be happy with a beer about now. Pity work isn't all that enlightened.

cheers

Dave

 

[Dan26]

Grendel,

You said; "Any achievement made during the home and away season counts for naught"

You also said : "Teams will only be judged on finals performances"

I know all this. What you're talking about is perception. People perceive that the Grand Final winner has acheived the most because the AFL recognise that team with all the kudos and glory.

The reality is the the home and away champion has acheived MORE. But the problem is they havn't been recognised for it. The public and the media react to the acheivement which gets the glory from the AFL (the winning Grand finalist)

Yes, I know that teams are only judged on finals performances. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. What you're talking about is how it IS. I'm talking about how it should be.

And my friend, how it SHOULD be, is that the top team on the ladder be recognised as the years best.

In my mind at least, if the Bombers went 22-0, or 21-1 in 2000, with the best attack and best defence, they are the years best team. Of course it would be shattering to lose the Grand Final itself. After all, us supporters are after the bragging rights.

But I'm not talking about bragging rights, or glory, or anything like that. I'm just talking about the actul acheivement of heading the ladder after 22 rounds. Take the "glory of winning the Grand Final" out of the equation.

If Essendon don't win the Grand Final, people will perceive Essendon in a certain way. How they "perceive" Essendon, and the "reality" are two different things.

West Coast may have "blown it" in 1991 (as you put it), but in my mind 1991 was the year of the Eagle. I think EVERYONE's lasting memory of the 1991 season is not Hawthorns well won Grand Final victory. People lasting memory is the ease and power with which West Coast destroyed the opposition, on their way to amassing 19 wins and a percentage of 162 !!!! Anyone who thinks that a team that amasses that kind of record is not the best team are kidding themselves. Of course they were the years best team. They just weren't recognised for it becasue the lost one match at the end of the year.

Sure, people perceive West Coast as having acheived nothing in 1991. But, as I mentioned, that is the AFL's fault for only recognising the GF winner, rather than BOTH the GF winner and the home and away champion. They should recognise both.

Remember, I'm talkina about how it SHOULD be. You're talking about how it IS.

I sincerely hope that how it "should be" one day comes to fruition.

(P.S. one team we have neglected to mention is Carlton 1995 team. I'd possibly back them against Hawthorns 88-89 teams. Why ? Not because of their 20-2 record, no. But more because of the fact that they went 15-0 against the 1995 finalists (including the finals). It's hard to believe isn't it. They won all 15 games against the other sides in the top 8. What this tells me, is that the two losses they had (against the Saints and Swans), they could easily have won if they had been "mentally" up to it for those games. Whenever they were challenged in 1995, the Blues won every game. They really had no weaknesses that year.

 

[Grendel]

Dan, who was it that wrote, History is recorded by the victourious?

Perception vs acheivment? percepetion will win every time. More so when the end result of that acheivment (the Flag) is what most perceive as the indicator of greatness.

Noble concept maybe but it wont ever happen. I dont hold much hope for you chances. History has time on its side after all. Good luck for trying though

Dave, you must be joking, you only got away in the last half of the last Q in 85 when the Hawks gave up the cause and couldnt go anymore. In 89 Dermie and THAT hip and shoulder. I knew we had you when only Madden tried the square up. Champion footballer Simon but no idea how to direct any malice on the field. In 89 we would have turned up at half time and still done it


EEEAAASSSYYY

Actually what about 86? We were waiting for you for our annual apointment and find that essendon has gone awol? And for the rest of the eighties too. We had to beat jobbers like Carlton and Melbourne and Geelong, you gave up the game, very disappointing.


Tell the truth I think to many people undersell the 88 side. Still have the single greatest piece of play ive ever seen occured in that game. The 2nd Q wall where they just crunched the ball forward from CHB through the middle to CHF only for Conan to just miss the goal. Awesome stuff.

One thing though about those sides, didnt they have some (both sides) real MONGRELS hahaha. I think thats why I lean to them over todays blokes, Might think they are hard boys today but Dermie and Rog, whooo what they could show to the boys out there in todays footy

scary stuff.

Of course they would then spend 3/4's of the season suspended

 

[Dan26]

I suppose you have to ask yourself Grendel, WHY to people perceive the Grand Final as the measure of greatness ?

It's an interesting question, but one to which there is a very logical answer.

The answer (and I know I'm going over old ground) is that the AFL gives the Grand Final all the recognition. If they gave top spot more recognition, then you (and me) and everyone else would want to win top spot much more than what we curently do.

Plus, I don't think the Grand Final is even perceived as the true measure of greatness anyway. I think you're mistaking it with "the most desirable thing to win"

I think every single person in Australia, that includes you, me, the media, etc. We all know that the Grand Final winner isn't NECESSARILY the best team. We all know this. You know it. I know it. The reason we want to win it so much is because of the hype and recognition that is asociated with it, not because it is the hardest thing to do, because let's face it......top spot is harder to acheive.

Lokk at ManU the other day. Premiers. Look at the celebration. That's how Essedon should have been celebrating after securing top spot last year. In only a short time, the FA Cup final between Aston Villa and Chelsea will take place. The last match of the season (just like our Grand Final is the last match of the season). Quite rightly, the winner of the FA Cup isn't regarded as necessarily being the best team. (but it's still a huge season climaxing event, anyway)

God, it would so much better if we did it that way. Think about how good it would be. Imagine Essendon's celebrations last year, then the agony as they attempted to do the "double" but were prevented from doing so as the Kangaroos won the 4 week finals series.

Mark my words. It will happen. We will be celebrating the home and away premiers sooner rather than later. That's the information I've received from the AFL anyway. But, as usual, they were pretty vague. It's a matter of "when" not "if".

 

[Dave]

Funny that, I remember us being five goals up at three qtr time, and it was only that close because a) we couldn't kick straight and b) dermie had a day out at FF

Against the '85 side Dermie wouldn't have tried THAT hip & shoulder as he'd have known big Roger would've squared up and then some.

As for the rest of the eighties, well someone dropped a mirror or five. '86 we did damn well just to get in after the run we had with injuries early, and '87/88 weren't much better.

Guess I'll just have to be content to have watched the only side in history to go back-to-back against the 'Orrible 'Awks.

 

[Grendel]

You know, we could keep this going forever if we tried

 

[Dave]

Of course!!

 

[The Dutchman!]

Dave, Grendel

Jeez I feel left out here. Gotta add some colour.

Firstly, if ND hadn't done his knee late in 81 we absolutely definitely would have made either the 81 or 82 GF - and probably had the same sort of inexperienced (and gut wrenchingly horrible) defeat we got in 83... BUT it would have meant we would have been seriously up for it in 83 - for one thing Rotten Ron would have definitely played and Colin Robertson would have died a young (gutless) man. What am I saying? ND was every bit as important to Essendon as Brereton was to you guys - and every bit as good. Ipso facto - I reckon ND's injury cost us at least the triple against you lot... pure and simple.

I know, I know, I know (coulda, shoulda, woulda...)

1986 - not much you can say about it Grendel. Not only did we lose Williams, Watson and (I think) Thompson to knees, we also lost Merritt (knee and then completely), Vander (recurring ankles), Baker (back to SA I think), Weston (retired)... in other words forget it...

I still remember kicking your arse Round 1, 1986 though - pretty thin memory given what happened 86, 88-89, 91 though.

All the best
Dutch

 

[The Ball]

I think you right there Dan24 about the home and away winners being recognised. I remember in 1998 when the roos were on top of the table that year. However, they lost the grand final and didn't get recogonised for anything. I remember thinking to myself that the crows weren't the best team that year despite the fact that they won the grand final.

If Dan24's idea would be used for the competition there would be no dispute about who the champions are for a particular year. As the actual premiers would actually have to perform consistantly over the whole streach of the season.

 

[Dan26]

The Ball,

Couldn't have put it better myself.

And, after the home and away premiership has been decided, we would still conclude the season with the finals series as usual. But the winner of that finals series, would be the premiers of that 4 week tournament only. Nothing more.

North were screwed in 1998. They put more effort in over the season than the Crows, and weren't recognised becasue they lost one match. BOTH teams should have been recognised. North for the home nd away championship. And the Crows for the 4 week finals series.

Double or nothing sucks. North experienced "double or nothing" at it's worst in 1998. As did the Dons a year later.

 

[Grendel]

Dutchy, told you before I agree re ND,but my turn for the 'coulda woulda shoulda',

If Bucky had never done a knee I really believe he would be ranked with the GODS of footy. The Guy was a serious freak. 84 if he had been there it would be good night dons at half time, I still see that MONSTER hanger he took in the goal square of the ressies GF in 85, legendary stuff.

Also remember a bloke called Andy Bennett, real tragic case there too. He could play yet did the knees twice, he killed the Vics in a state game around 79/80. and Richard Walter who we were grooming to take Scottys place, if they had all been okay we would have started well before 83 it held us back big time. Collingwoods 4 in a row would have been shattered.

Then there was a bloke called Ablett. Now if he had half a brain and stayed with us instead of scurrying away up bush,well I think you can guess what MIGHT have been.

Thats a scary thought for any non Hawk and a frustrating thought for Hawk fans. Oh what could have been

Still it makes for fun reading and I remember spankings too, like 92 I cant think of another match where the oppositions fans left before half time. Now that was the mother of all hidings.

and to think you won a flag 16 months later, I still scratch my head at that hahaha

 

[The Dutchman!]

I can remember a whole shedload of pie fans leaving WELL before half time on John Cahill's last day as Collingwood Coach and their last game for (I think it was) the 1985 season - something like 19 goals to 1 at half time.

No offence Joel or Jaffa - I've heard the "Who kicked 5 goals in the 1990 GF?" joke a million times too.

Seem to have blotted the 92 final out of my memory - does not compute....