Potted history of last 8 AFL finals

[CrowsOK]

I hope I have remembered all the details correctly.

1993: Essendon grab an unexpected one coming up through the finals series. They nearly stumble against inexperienced Adelaide, but get past that to win a lucky one over Carlton, who didn't really look all that likely.

1994: West Coast are the top team, and dominate all year. Denied a home GF, they have to play an away game to get the flag, but power through it anyway to win very impressively.

1995: Carlton top spot, and deserved premiers. No drama with this one. No home ground GF advantage for the Blues, but no real away game handicap either. Is this the year West Coast were dudded a home semi-final?

1996: Sydney are the top team and deservedly so. Sydney not given a home GF and must play an away game at North Melbourne's home ground to win the flag, and don't quite make it. Sydney were robbed.

1997: Thankfully we were spared a fairytale GF. Crows at round 19 are competitive with the top teams, but certainly not any better. Needing some sort of edge to overcome a certain away game handicap if they make the GF, Crows take a non-traditional approach to finals considering what happened to Sydney the previous year. It works for them just fine.

1998: Crows trick works again, and Crows rack up an unsurpassed record at winning away finals, even against teams supposedly above them. Despite Crows having told everyone exactly what they did and how they went about it, apparently no-one in Melbourne is bright enough to figure out what happened.

1999: Essendon dominate the season, but stumble at the penultimate hurdle. Not good enough under pressure. North grab another one, almost by default. West Coast dudded yet again for a home semi-final.

2000: Essendon dominate again, but this time carry it through the GF easily. This is the most impressive season of any.

Of the teams that contested GF games, ratings (not in any order) would be:

West Coast: very good. In the year they won, better than the rest by far. Hard luck story in quite a few other years. Perennial finalists missed out only in 2000.

Essendon: Up and down. Known to be a bit fluky at times in finals. Currently very good though, and will be hard to stop next year.

Carlton: Show up in the finals often. Only in one year has really looked the goods, though.

North: Also show up in finals often. Even though they grabbed a couple of flags under questionable circumstances, no-one seems to actually question them. Can't figure out why.

Sydney: Just needed a bit of luck and justice to go their way. Nearly but not quite. Apart from 96 a few other appearances.

Saints: Had a reasonable run of form leading into the 97 GF after gaining top spot, but for all that weren't noticeably better than a number of other flag contenders, and ended up falling well short.

Melbourne: came the closest to getting over Essendon in 2000. Not sure how they missed out on a GF game in 98, but they did. Perhaps the best team not to actually pick up a GF win.

Geelong: never looked likely against rampant West Coast. Have turned up in the finals often enough though.

Adelaide: Shaky start to finals appearances, and went completely missing for some years. Overall good enough to have established the best win/loss record overall in finals of the lot. Certainly the best at away finals, and have won as many flags as any other team.

Others that didn't make any GF games:

Bulldogs: The best of the no-shows in GF games. Close but no cigar. A bit harsh calling them chokers, but there is that suspicion.

Brisbane: Have made sporadic finals appearances. Haven't won too many.

Hawthorn: Likewise.

Power: Just the one gig, for no result.

No finals at all in this period for Freo, Richmond or Collingwood.

I bet this lot will stir up some ire. As far as I know, though, it is accurate. So it shouldn't be contentious at all, really.

 

[CJH]

CrowsOK,

Just to correct a few facts. Richmond have played in 3 finals during the period you specified.

We finished 3rd in 1995 and got done in the qualifying final by a more experienced (finals wise) North Melbourne. The following week we gave Essendon a 5 goal start then reeled them in during the second half to win by 13 points (?).

The follwing week was a miserable day out at Waverley where Geelong tanned us a new arseh*le.

This was easily Richmond's most successful year since 1982 - please don't try any take it off us! We've been trading on that success for the past 5 years!

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by CJH:
CrowsOK,

Just to correct a few facts. Richmond have played in 3 finals during the period you specified.

We finished 3rd in 1995 and got done in the qualifying final by a more experienced (finals wise) North Melbourne. The following week we gave Essendon a 5 goal start then reeled them in during the second half to win by 13 points (?).

The follwing week was a miserable day out at Waverley where Geelong tanned us a new arseh*le.

This was easily Richmond's most successful year since 1982 - please don't try any take it off us! We've been trading on that success for the past 5 years!

Apologies CJH and all Richmond fans. I actually was feeling a bit sorry for Richmond just missing out all those times, but hey since you had 1995 then thats fine! I don't have to feel sorry for you at all now, do I?

But yes, there is a chance that there are other errors and miscounts as well. Its all just from memory I'm afraid.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Maggies made the finals in 1994.

 

[CrowsOK]

Originally posted by Mr Ripper:
Maggies made the finals in 1994.

Did they? Yes as I said I may have missed some details, as it was all done from memory.

So how did they go, what position did they finish the minor round in, did they win any finals matches?

 

[lioness]

In the case of the Brisbane Lions, I think we really just need more finals experience, and particularly some away finals early. Yes the home finals are a total advantage, ooh wait, maybe we just need more wins (H&A wins) at the MCG???? Yep. (Excuse the indecisiveness, I am damn tired lol

)

 

[Michele]

CrowsOK

"..North grab another one (flag) under questionable circumstances, no one seems to actually question them. Can't figure out why."

And this objective analysis comes from a supporter, who lives in a state that paint cows (cattle) in the colours of red, blue and yellow.

Michele

 

[sainter]

I'm interested to know from non-Victorian team supporters if they would prefer a Grand Final in their home state or at the MCG.

To me, the MCG is the greatest sporting venue in the country - historically and culturally.

Tickets are allocated to club members on account of how many members they have so in reality there is hardly any more support for the Victorian team. Hopefully any crows supporters that were at the 97 and 98 Grand Finals will agree with that last point.

The Grand Final parade and lead up is the greatest week of the year if your team is in the finals. The travelling team has plenty of time to acclimatise to the conditions.

And while I disagreed with pretty much all your analysis, the one which has annoyed me the most was that Sydney was robbed in 1996. They earned the right to two home finals and won them both. I certainly don't think they would consider themselves robbed, nor do I think we were robbed despite finishing 1st and failing to win the Grand Final in 1997.

CrowsOK, as long as you personally are impressed with this "us against them" mentality against Victorians, good on you. Most of us just don't care.



------------------
Fortius Quo Fidelius

 

[ptw]

MCG for me Sainter...Football park is a hole anyway and if you look at the record:

WCE lost 1 won 2
Sydney lost 1
Adl won 2 lost none

that makes it 4 to 2 so there is no advantage.

I too do not give a toss for SA v Vic rivalry.

ptw

 

[The Dutchman!]

Couple of minor corrections...

1. Thought Essendon finished top in 93 (ie: did not come up through series - but actually had to come back after losing the semi against Carlton by - what's that margin again? oh yes - 1 point.

2. Sydney got more luck than they deserved in 96 (no offence BSA) but two free-kick assisted goals in the last 2 minutes to make a GF against the Dons who went down unluckily by a point for the second week running. North deserved that flag - no question they would have beaten anyone including an injury ravaged Dons team. IE: not a soft flag at all.

3. 1999 was arguably a soft flag for North but arguably makes up for throwing away the 98 flag purely and simply through inaccurate 1st half kicking - basically the 98 flag goes down as the luckiest flag since Melb won a replay after getting away with around 20 less scoring shots against Essendon in the late 1940's - particularly given that the Crows got thumped early in the finals series as well (or was that in 97... or in both years?)

4. Essendon's 2000 team would have at least broken even with if not beaten the 1994 WCE team... (no brainer)

5. Carlton deserve more respect for their 1995 team than you have afforded them - awesome.

 

[Grendel]

Just on that 96 finals series, the Dons though unlucky to lose two finals by a point would have been elimanated in the first week if the Hawks hadnt had their share of bad luck too. The final we played against the Swans with Dunstall going down, Creswell (CRESWELL) marking and goaling late and Salmon getting the biggest shove in the back youve ever seen from Dunkley and no free for it. Well lets just say i was miffed!
Also in 94 with the first ever drawn extra time final, luck just didnt seem to fall our way in the mid nineties.
Add to the fact that we ran the COasters to 13 points in 92 in Perth (with Dunstall crucified i might add) our finals record for the decade (theres a flag in there to dont forget) stacks up favourably against most.

 

[Darky]

Good call Dutchman, if Norths flags were soft, what does that makes Adelaide's flags?

North and Sydney were CLEARLY 1 & 2 for 1996, and it was the best example of the last 10 years where the top two seemed evenly pitted against eachother to win the ultimate prize.

------------------
Seeking thruths in spirit skies
Which one of you will guide me tonight?
The milky way tastes sour
Has heaven lost its power?
Fly on... Silverwing

 

[Pessimistic]

Reality Check

That Era is over, The interstate 'honeymoon' is over. Its back to the old favourites of Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn from now on.

And the Saints thrashed everyone put in front of them in 1997 - They lost key players in the finals - that finished them off. They would have been worthy winners. Perhaps thats why they are so rated for 2001, despite the enormity of the task in front of them.

But give Adelaide their due, they play really well in finals - they just have to get there first !

 

[CURVE]

Interesting, but lets be realistic.

NORTH SHOULD HAVE WON EVERY GRAND FINAL FROM 1993 - 1999. (I'll give Essendon their 2000 flag.)

1993 - We were the best team all season up to Round 19 when we lost Carey to injury. That was followed by Longmire, Martyn, Archer and Laidley.

1994 - The hand of God and a 33-13 free kick count against us cost us in the Prelim. Easy shots missed by Allison and Stevens in the final quarter didn't helop either. In the GF, West Coast would have been easy.

1995 - The loss of Stevens in the Prelim, and the weather conditions cost us certain victory against Carlton. The GF...well it was against Geelong, need I say more.

1996 - We won it, we deserved it.

1997 - Injuries to Carey and McKernan at the start of the season wasn't the start we wanted, It cost position and momentum, but come finals time, we were looking good until McKernan was injured again in the Prelim.

1998 - 11 straight wins. Nobody could beat us except ourselves, and we did it the GF of all gamews.

1999 - We went into the GF on a seven games winning streak (19 of the last 21) and got what we deserved. The flag.

2000 - Essendon were the best team all year and deserved the flag.

2001 - Kangas all the way.

DEVO
A proud (and some say biased) supporter of the best club in the world - North Kangaroos

 

[Shinboners]

Devo,

Biased? It sounds pretty reasonable to me.....

 

[The Dutchman!]

Devo

Congratulations, you're pushing Bee for one of more biased posts in the history of Bigfooty, but hey, at least your post is humourous...

Deserved to win in 99 hey? When was the last time you got within 8 goals of Essendon again? Also 7 in a row = soft draw and avoiding both us and a full strength Lions... but as said, particularly after the 98 1st half choke, better you guys than the Blue scum - or the Crows lord knows...

Speaking of which, 95, Carlton - 2nd best season of all time and you reckon you were unlucky... hmmmm

I was at the 94 Geelong PF - great game - and yes you were unlucky...

93 - get real...

But keep punching! Nothing wrong with passion...

 

[ptw]

let me get this right DEVO....

apart from all those games North lost they would have won 7 in a row.

On that logic Port have been the most successful team of the past 4 years...if it wasn't for all those games we got flogged in, all the injuries and the fact that none of our forward line has managed a positive goal / behind ratio. But still we are the greatest...all those things are beyond our control.

geez

ptw

 

[CURVE]

Dutchie,
You are right about the last seven games in 1999 being soft, and we thrashed those teams accordingly. Richmond, Sydney, St. Kilda, Collingwood, Adelaide, Port and Brisbane were all second rate opposition in 1999. To lose to any of them at that time of season or to Carlton would be embarrassing. But unlike Essendon we didn't and we got what we deserved.

Carlton in 1995 were not the great team everybody makes them out be. Lucky, Yes. Great, NO. Like Essendon in 2000, they had very few injuries, while (unlike Essendon) it seemed that every team they were up against lost two or three of their top players. One thing Carlton did have in 1995 was Team Spirit. A lot a players saw it as the last chance for glory and played accordingly.

Up until the injuries 1993, we were certainties. We thrashed Essendon by 38 points after trailing at three quarter time by 10, Carlton by 38 points after playing in Adelaide 5 days before and we comfortably defeated West Coast in Subiaco. We had one of the best forward lines that year, with Longmire (Legend), Carey (the Greatest player of all time) and McAdam (one season wonder) all scoring over seventy goals and Mark Roberts scoring about 40. They played hard, fast and without fear.

DEVO
The Passionate Kangaroo

 

[Shinboners]

I'll post the dissenting view and say that North wearn't ready in '93. If we were to win it, we would have had to play someone like Adelaide (no Grand Final experience) to have had a chance. Of the other top 3 sides, Carlton and Essendon were finals hardened and both had premiership players. We did have a very good side, but even injury free, we wearn't quite premiership material just yet. To prove the point, West Coast had the track record over the 1991 season, but by the time they got to the finals, they were well beaten by the finals and Grand Final hardened Hawthorn side.

 

[Dan26]

Crows OK,

You are a South Australian with a chip on your shoulder.

The MCG is NOT an advantage to Victorian teams. No team trains there, and the ground hosts over 50 matches a year.

At finals time, BOTH clubs get allocated tickets. in 1998, my feeling was (I was at the game) that Adelaide outnumbered North Melbourne, and the Crows supporterrs were one of the things that helpled get them back into the game in the second half.

Crows supporters also made up a huge amount of the crowd in 1997, and the Crows seemed to lift when their fans found voice in the last quarter.

In 1996, there were at least as many people barracking for Sydney as there were North Melbourne....probably more. Most neutral supporters wanted the Swans to win.

Also, in 1993, Essendon finished on top of the ladder, suffered a 2 point loss to the Blues, (who were 2nd), yet recovered to win the GF wnayway. Essendon were the best team of the year. In 1993, we were Ansett Cup, top spot, and Grand Final winner. We won it all that year.

Also, to say that we didn't handle the pressure in 1999 is an absolute load of crap. We lost by one point, not 10 goals. If Mark Mercuris kick in the dyin seconds bounced right instead of left, we would have won the match, and you'd be saying : "Essendon handled the pressure of a close match superbly"

No one is unbeatble. we were a much better team than Carlton that year and handled everythign that came our way. Carlton choked in the second half and gave up a 24 point lead, to trail be 17 points in the 3rd quarter. Essendon also had 33 scoring shots to 24 in the match, indicating that we handled the pressure well enough to score 9 more times than them. we kicked innacurately, sure...but we could have kicjed even MORE innacuratley, and won the game by a point if we kicked two more points !!!!

This was just one game of footy over 2 hours and Essendon were better on the day. Yet, on the day, anything can happen, and we fell short, despite being the better team on the day (and through the year). These things happen unfortunately.

Just because a team loses a close match dosn't mean they choke. Someone has to lose, and in the last quarter, both teams were playing great football.

 

[ptw]

sorry Dan...but did you just say that essendon were the best team on the day and lost ?


Not sure how that works. There is a standard definition of the best team and that is whoever wins the game. Simple but hard to argue against.

Seems to be one set of rules for Essendon and one for everyone else. If Essendon lose then there are a whole heap of reasons why they were still the best, just some seagull flew left instead of right resulting in a puff of wind which robbed them of the win.

When the crows win there are all sorts of reasons why they were crap, and that any number of teams were more deserving.

Can you cite an example of a premiership that Essendon won which they did not deserve ?

I can see that you cannot reconcile the situation of Adelaide in 97/98 and Essendon in '99. Seems to have had a very big impact on you.

Your notion of a team playing crap all year then jagging a flag is way too simplistic. The best premiership efort I can recall is Norwood in 1984. They finished 5th and won 4 elimination finals to win the flag, all against more fancied opposition. No more deserving premiers in my view (although they beat Port in the GF so it is only with age that I can accept this view of course !!).

ptw


[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 13 December 2000).]

 

[hilly]

My two cents worth....

1993: A fairly even year, with Essendon, Carlton and North Melbourne about the same, with Adelaide just behind. North fell away towards the end with inexperience and injuries, Adelaide had a great victory over Hawthorn but were exposed against Carlton the next week and were then reeled in by an Essendon side that took things too lightly in the first half, before coming alive in the 2nd. Carlton were pushed around physically on grand final day, and I believe Essendon learned a lot from the defeat in the qualifying final.

1994: Carlton were the best team throughout the year, but choked, plain and simple, with defeats to 7th placed melbourne and an injury-plagued geelong side. West Coast were the most consistent side, with Geelong extremely lucky to make the GF (5 point win over footscray, carlton choking in semi and north somehow losing the prelim final)

1995: Carlton outstanding in winning 20/22 during the h & a season. Geelong an improved side from 94 and 16/22 would normally see a side competitive for top spot, not 4 wins plus % adrift. Outside of these two, Richmond had a great year, whilst North was terribly inconsistent.

1996: Despite Sydney finishing on top of the ladder, North Melbourne were the best team throughout the year, and proved this during the finals (60pts over geelong, 43 over brisbane and 43 over sydney). Brisbane were much improved although they had trouble in Melbourne (still no finals victories outside Queensland). Essendon were overrated, and it is rubbish to suggest they would have defeated North in the Grand Final.

1997: St Kilda, the Western Bulldogs and Geelong are all of equal standing during the year, with Adelaide and at times North contesting. Geelong were unlucky to draw North on the MCG with Carey back in form, and then to play adelaide in SA. The mark not paid to Colbert may have cost them a flag. The Bulldogs would have won the Grand Final had they not relaxed against the Crows. St Kilda were unfortunate to lose Everitt and Vidovic, but then again Adelaide were unfortunate to lose Riccutio and Vardy. North were far too inconsistent and never got in serious contention.

1998: North and Western Bulldogs the best teams of the year, with Sydney somehow finishing 3rd and Melbourne gaining momentum throughout the finals. The big shock again being the Crows ability to win 3/4 finals on the road, with the victories coming against sydney (3rd), wb (2nd) and finally north (1st). I'm not sure if North threw away the flag or not, sure their kicking for goal was very poor, but they did not get the ball through the corridor, hence it was made tough for them early on.

1999: Essendon the best side during the year, with North recovering well from a bad start and Brisbane inproving from their 16th placing of 98. The much awaited Bombers-Kangaroos grand final never was, although I believe it would have been much closer than bomber fans may like to believe (a 4 goal loss in round 17, with north clearly stepping up a gear in the finals). Still, I would have tipped essendon by 6 pts, but fortunately as a north supporter Essendon didn't get that far, and Carlton were no match. I don't believe Essendon choked that day, simply Carlton was fantastic and perhaps Essendon took it a bit easy. That is not choking.

2000: Essendon best team no argument

I hope I have not offended too many people

[This message has been edited by hilly (edited 13 December 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Hilly,

Good response.

PTW,

Look mate, I think I am being quite resonable. It is quite possible to be the better side on the day and lose. That's often the nature of sport. In 1999, we had 33 scoring shots to 24 - 9 MORE. We had more of the ball, more of the play....more of everything really.

Carlton took their chancs, plain and simple. With all due respect, Lance Whitnall, bombing 60 metre goals on the boundary line in the dying moments is great footy, but it is hardly the type of kick you would nornally expect to score. What is the percentage probability of kicking a 60 metre kick from the boundary? Whitnall could try this at training with no pressure, and he would miss 9 times out of ten !!

I am not being biased to say Essendon were better on the day. Ironically, when we beat Carlton by 76 points in Round 16 1999, we had 31 shots to 25. We had 6 more scoring shots.

INCREDIBLY, in the preliminary final, we had 2 more shots than we did in Round 16 (33 to 31), and we kept Carlton to one less (24 in the prelim to 25 in Round 16), yet we lost by a point. We had 9 more overall, as opposed to 6 more in Round 16.

We played well enough, but I think even A Carlton supporter would admit the Bombers were bit stiff.

I am not bagging the Crows at all. I have given the Crows credit for their marvellous finals performances on many occasions. I actually though it was quite refreshing to see a different set of colours doing well in September. The Crows supporters also made Grand Final day much more vibrant, colourful and enthusiastic than West Coast's two flags.

All I said was that the Crows, didn't deserve tyo be called "whole season champs" simply because they played 4 weeks of superb football. 4 weeks, is 4 weeks. it's not a whole season.

Essendon, through no fault of mine (hey, I just barack for them) have regulary finished on top (1990,93,99,2000), so when I stick up for Essendon's 1999 season, I am not being biased, I am simply being realistic.

 

[ptw]

Dan

It is not a big deal.

I don't think it is possible to really be the best side on the day and lose.

It is easy to highlight the scoreboard at the end of the game, but kicking for goal is but one aspect of the entire game...it is just easy to quantify.

I was not at the game so I am talking hypothetically...but if Essendon had that many more scoring shots then it says to me that their midfield was on top for a large part of the day...resulting in the ball entering the 50m zone consistently and enabling many scoring opportunties which the Bombers failed to capitalize on.

Effectively you are saying that were it not for the part of the game (kicking for goal) that the Bombers played crap in on the day they would have won. Carlton could say the same thing....were it not for our crap midfield most of the day we would have won by more. The game goes for 4 quarters and is played from FB to FF. You can't single out one aspect...like kicking for goal...and claim that Essendon were better except for that.

Trust me....I am a Port supporter. I know about poor kicking for goal. The worst attitude you can take is that we are a great side, just unlucky. If your ruckman plays crap he plays crap. If your forwards play crap by not doing what they are paid to do (kick goals) then they are unlucky and overall we are still the better side.

I still don't think you give the crows credit for their whole season. I won't repeat my previous post here but I think it stands.

ptw

 

[Michele]

Dutchman,

Essendon supporters believe North's 1999 Premiership was 'soft'. If the supporters forget about their own team for a minute and check the facts, they will see North was building momentum.

I am also on record in March 1998(on radio) saying North would be in 1998 GF. Following 1998, all North supporters knew the Roos would be Prmeiers in 1999.

Without the benefit of hindsight, I and many North supporters knew North would win the 1999 flag, just as Essendon supporters knew the flag was theirs in 2000.

Michele