The Team of the 90's

[Arch]

(with thanks to eagle fan)-
Personally, i have to say North is the team of 90's, only because of their consistancy of making the finals (and the big end of the finals)most importantly. also Carey is a champion no matter what the tall poppies say- you may hate his guts, but he's a winner in evry sense of the word. Eagle Fan wont like it, but maybe the eagles are the team of the early ninties. Their performances over the back half of the 90's (whilst being creditable) havent been dominating. It includes some finals exits with big losing margins, but they've always been around the finals and in the action eventhough they beat geelong for their flags . Adelaide in my opinion is even further from the title, although you have to marvel at Blighty and co, and the fact they went back to back prem's. I honestly thought it couldnt be done- and will say here now- that i dont think it'll happen again in a long time. (unless north signs MORE clubs team captains)
at least they proved someone COULD win from lower ladder positions. But the crows cant win it because they have been too iffy. Good this week and bad the next, good this season and bad the next. They have had alot of injuries too though.
Id love to argue for the bombers but i wont get far. 2 GF's, one cup, 2 lost prelims, 2 points.As i see it, it should have been 4 flags. but shit happens.

what do you think ????

 

[Pessimistic]

Don't get too obsessed by Decades

83-91 Hawthorn (with a cameo by Essendon)
92-94 Eagles (with thanks to Geelong)
96-99 North (with a cameo by Adelaide)
2000 A new era begins

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Pretty bloody big cameo pessimistic!
If North hadn't won in '99, would you still have them as the 'Team of the Nineties'? Essendon should have been '99 Premiers, but wouldn't have been TOT90's if they had.

Obviously I'm going to argue the we have been the best team over the last 10 seasons. I had this argument in September, and had all the figures and stuff, but It'll take me a while to find them.
In short, it came to the fact that WC played more finals than NM, won a higher % of finals and won a higher % of games overall, or something like that. Also we had a higher average ladder position both before and after finals.... or something.

But are North Melbourne Football Club the same as the Northern Kangaroos? They each won just 1 flag in the decade. Talk about destroying tradition.

Is making the finals, but going out by a big margin better or worse than not making the finals at all? Two of our big losses have been in games that should have been played over here. I'm not saying we definately would have won them both, but the uncertainty and controversy surrounding them did play a part in the losses. In '96 we were hot! In '91 we were Grand Final virgins. In '95 no-one but Carlton had a chance, and in '93 we would have been Grand finallists if Essendon had beat Carlton in the qualifying final, instead of going down by 2 points! Or if the umpiring in the WC/Ess game hadn't been quite so biased, but lets not go there....

Anyway, I think this will be one of those 'agree to disagree' topics!

Who's your tip for 'Team of the Naughties'?

 

[Power Mad]

Port Adelaide of course!

 

[The Boss]

With all of their 'Tradition'

 

[greta]

If north are so good then how come they have to consider movin to find fans?

 

[The Boss]

I don't think they moved for that reason - I'm not a North fan, I don't know why they moved

 

[Pessimistic]

I gave it to North because of consistently high positions over a few years. I don't think you can really award the nineties to one team, Hence splitting it up. Essendon Carlton Adelaide did some great things but didn't have a consistent era.
If you wanted to argue a particular way you could say the '91 Hawks could take on any team on their GF day form, but there have been some average performaces for the rest of the decade.
Incidentally Pagan Carey and the Roos have said their next goal is to emulate Brereton and Hawthorn, and there is still a way to go. Perhaps Mike Shehan and His "Carey Greatest Ever" buddies should chew on that

My team of the coming decade ? obviously I'm biased but the Hawks traditionally start a new decade well, and our key position players are fast becoming the match of anyone,even though Holland is the oldest at 26, the others are all 19,20 etc
Add the usual Luck, preparation, motivation and we could do well.
Carlton Bulldogs Essendon Adelaide etc might have a couple more good seasons but North, Power, Lions have enough young players to be strong in the longer term

 

[Dan26]

Remember though, the Bombers have finished on top of the ladder THREE times in the 1990's, which (AS I HAVE SAID, MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES), means they were the best team of the year.

Sure, not many people care about top spot(becasue of the lack of recognition), but this doesn't take away from the acheivemnet, does it ?

Only West Coast comes close, having finishing on top twice.

Top spot indicates who has been the best team of the year.

The answer in the 1990's is : Essendon - three times.

I sincerley wish we could have won a couple more Grand Finals, but what does this prove, really ? It proves you are the best on the day. Does being the best on the day twice (eg Kanagroos, and WCE) mean you are the team of the WHOLE decade ??

One match doesn't maketh a season no more than 1 bird makes a flock.

Oh, sure we all don't care too much about top spot, but whether we care or not, it is still the true test as to how good you are, as opposed to a one-off match, against a one-off opponent.

This gets all the gory, and it deserves some glory (BUT NOT ALL THE GLORY)

If Adelaide were the best team on the day twice, does that mean they have had a better decade than Essendon, who were the best on the day only once, but were the best over the WHOLE SEASON 3 times ?

The clubs are striving to win the GF as the ultimate glory, sure ! Everyone wants to win it (me included)

But the best way to judge how actually good you are, is to see who has finished on top the most. This indicates who the best team has been.

The fact than no one cares is not my point. That's the AFL's fault for not giving it more recognition

 

[Dan26]

I ask all of you to tell me who has been the "PREMIER" team the most times in the 1990
s.

When I say "PREMIER", I mean as per the definition.

Premiers means, :"BEST. Above all other"

Now according to this, who has been the "premier" team the most times in the 1990's ?

Whether that team was acknowledged for those efforts or not, is not the point. Who has been the "premier" team the most times in the 90's ?

 

[colley31]

Guys, guys, guys. You all just don't get it, the reason why the Kangaroos are the team of the 90's and not the Eagles, or the Bombers is consistency. Essendon don't even deserve to be mention in the same breath as these two teams. So what if they finished on top 3 times during the decade, how many people out there actually remember what 3 years they were. Who cares ?? They only won one premiership, and in that year Carlton were clearly the best team in the comp, but to their credit and like Adelaide, they were the best team on the day. West Coast made the finals every year of the decade and deserves credit for the second best team of the decade. However, success in my opinion is measured on premliminary finals and grand finals, and the Eagles won every premliminary final they played in, in the early part of the 90's. They were successful, however have really only made up the numbers in the eight / six since 1994. Which leaves me to the team of the decade - the Mighty Kangaroos. They started the decade slowly, but once they got their act together, they became the most exciting team in the competition, they have not missed a preliminary final since 1994, made 3 Grand Finals, won 2 flags. All those Essendon supporters out there who are still in shock after their beloved Bombers bombed out, in the game of the year against Carlton, it's no use crying over spilt milk. You already snatched a flag from Carlton during the 90's, what comes around goes around, except where did you finish this year, that's right third, and only two teams can play off. Bad Luck.

 

[Jaffa]

There was no team of the 90's.

As there was no team of the 70's.

In both those decades you could argue for quite a number of teams.

Hawthorn were unquestionably the team of the 80's.

North, West Coast or even Adelaide if premierships are the sole measure could be given the title.

Since they all won two premierships there is no certain answer.

It's a waste of time even discussing the topic.

 

[Dan26]

Colley31

Did you not actually read my posts ? I don't think you did.

Essendon finished on top of the ladder in 1993. That's right on TOP !

They then won the GF against Carlton, who had finished second on the ladder. Essendon was the best team in the competition (as finishing on top proves), and they then went on to win the GF as well.

Carlton were NOT the best team. They were beaten on the day, AND over the course of the 6 month season, they finished below Essendon too (although only on percentage, Essendon still finished top.

The other thing you say, is that no one cares about finishing top.

That's right. Youre a genius aren't you.

If you actually read my posts, you will realise that that is NOT MY POINT.

The point is, that the team that finishes on top is the best team in the competition (despite not being recognised). They have proven theselves over the long haul against ALL opposition, over the course of 6 months. Being the best on the day against a one-off opponent is different.

The fact that no one cares about top spot is the AFL's fault for nor giving it any recognition. It's still, and always has been the best way to judge how good you are. Anyone can win a one-off match on the day. Christ, Adelaide did it twice !

It SHOULD get more recognition. Then you, and everyone else would care about it much more than what you currently do.

It's the hardest acheivement in football, and goes to the best (i.e premier) team, but unfortunately top spot doesn't get recognised.

In Soccer, top spot is the premiers. There is no GF. There is a seperate tounrnament called the FACUP, where they play exciting one-off knockout matches, but being the best over the course of a season is what it is all about in Soccer.

Unfortunately, the Home and away season is perceived as meaningless, becasue nothing counts unless you win the GF. This is unfortunate, because a team works and trains for 6 months to PROVE to be the best, but becasue of ONE match, their season is rendered useless ?

I have no problem with being knocked out after losing, but it should just represent the finals series. Not the home and away season. 90 percent of your work goes into the H &A season, becasue this comprises nearly every game, and this is where the best team has been proved. The winning Grand Finalaist only potentially has to play 3 of the other 7 finalists, so as you can see, it doesn't alwyas go to the bst team. Luck can play a factor.

One match doesn't make a season, no more than one bird makes a flock

If you win the GF, you are not necessarily the best team. Denis Pagan even said it himself last year !

Why can't BOTH the home and away premier and the finals series premier get recognition.

So yes Essendon were not remembered for being the best team in 1990, 1993, and 1999. Only the winning Grand Finalist was remembered.

BUT Essendon was still the best team in those years. They have been the best in the 90's more often than anyone else. If the top team is not remembered, don't blame me. Blame the AFL !!!!!!!

Remember, just becasue the top team isn't recognised, doesn't make their acheivement any less.

 

[team of the moment]

There is no team of the nineties. Three clubs
finished the nineties with two flags.

As with any year there is one only club which can get back-to-bak this year - North. There is one club that can get three flags in four years - Adelaide. If North win the flag this year they will not only achieve back-to-back but also three flags in five years.

To decide which is the best club over a period it depends ENTIRELY on the period.

In any given year the claim is that the club which ends up on top after 22 rounds is the best that season - this claim also depends on the period. Take 1997 as an example since Dan24 has mentioned that year - Saints ended on top after 22 rounds. Crows were on top that year after 19 rounds. I think Geelong wasn't it after 21 rounds. Another way of looking at is is thinking Crows were again on top after 26 rounds.

It depends ENTIRELY on the period considered. There is no particular merit in being on top after 22 rounds - its not a particularly magic number.

This is especially so since the draw is NOT even - it can only be even for 16 clubs after thirty rounds. Thats too long and can't happen. So that scotches the notion of special merit for finishing minor round premiers.

At least winning a flag does involve overcoming the pressure on GF day - and that is a special achievement.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

To win a flag means having the complete game. Not only do you have to do well enough to finish as high up on the ladder as possible, which involves fitness and injury management and peaking at the right time, but you've also got to be able to handle finals footy- an entirely different game.

I don't really want to enter into this argument, but if you consider consistency- there's only one answer!

10 finals series in a row..... the only team to do so..... You all know it deep down! Just kidding..

 

[Longjohn]

Everyone knows the Kangaroos and Pagan and Carey are the greatest things since slice beetroot, so why all the fuss?

Does it really hurt that much? to admit how great the NORTH MELBOURNE KANGAROOS have been, and will be for a few more years to come...

Imagine if the Kangaroos had the money the Weagles have, or manipulated the draft in the late 80s early 90s, like the Weagles did.

Back to Back, KANGAROOS...

 

[Arch]

north is the vote because each time theyve been in the finals, theyve always been a realstic chance to win the flag. The eagles (like somone else said) have been making up the numbers for about 6 years now. They havent actually been considered a real chance, but have slogged out the finals anyway usually to a disappoinitng end(for eagles fans anyway.) Adelaide i think deserves alot of credit, not for just back to back flags, but the way they won those GF's. Both St Kilda and North looked good, only to be overpowered in the 2nd half.
But north has to be TOTN for sure. and to jaffa- if the topic is a waste of time- then why did you post on it,or bother reading it in the 1st place ?????

 

[Arch]

ALSO- long john- you know that the bombers would've "brained" yers in the GF dont ya ???
(not that it f**king matters anymore) but pagan admitted that himself.
dont get too cocky about 2000, cuz its all ours baby.

 

[Jaffa]

I'm just trying to point out that you're wasting your time. There was no team of the 90's.

Get it through your ****ing thick head.

 

[Arch]

jaffa u stupid piece of shit. why bother posting to a topic that YOU say is a waste of time. you have obviously been lobotomized at some point which reduces your ability to understand and comprehend simple statements.
why not go hang out with power mad, and you can both buttf**k some sense into eachothers piss tiny craniums.

 

[Jaffa]

Oh please.

The topic is "who is the team of the 90's".

My opinion is no-one.

Do you know what no-one means dickhead?

No-one is my opinion.

My opinion is that there was no team of the 90's.

Have you got that?

Maybe you want me to translate that into another language?

You stupid piece of shit?

MY OPINION IS NO-ONE.

How ****ing stupid are you?

Pretty ****ing stupid I'd say.

You're a ****ing loser mate. A sad ****ing loser.

Christ almighty. Relax and get a ****ing life.

 

[tom_gamble]

you absolute dickhead longjohn!!
the only reason the eagles were so good was that they had PROFESSIONALISM (something other teams like the kangas did not know of at that time) and they trained HARD (something the kangas did not do).
then when the eagles started to have some success other teams took this "PROFESSIONALISM" and started to work hard. this is why other teams are having success now. don't you get it???

 

[Bluey]

Perhaps we could discuss the topic and not whether anyone has a penis growing out of their head or is a piece of excrement?

Thanks guys.

 

[apollo_creed]

Originally posted by Dan24
R

The answer in the 1990's is : Essendon - three times.

Rubbish.

So by Dan 24's logic aka Dan 25 and Dan 26 Port Adelaide and Essendon are the two best teams of the decade so far

 

[BulldogMike]

North Melbourne would have been the best overall followed by West Coast.