What went wrong after 2000?

[Tasroo]

In 2000 Essendon had the best team since the Carlton team of 1995 and before that the Hawks team of 1988/9. So why is it that 3 years later it is Brisbane that is on the verge of 4 straight premierships? Did they steal the Bombers date with destiny?

The salary cap benefits that Brisbane have can't be discounted. However Essendon haven't been the team running second to them over the last two years. Did players get to greedy after 2000 and ask for too much money, which resulted in too many players having to be sacrificed?

Or was it just that the hunger was lost?

 

[bOmBeR_BoY1]

Unfortunately, I think some of our senior players got a bit too comfortable with the fact that they had won 1 premiership and I think with the team they had in 2001/02 they should of probably snatched another one (in the later stages of 2001, and quite often through 2002 there were just signs of "laziness" through some players, luckily though a lot of those players don't play for us anymore).
Also there were a few retirements at the end of 2000, and despite our major injury concerns in 2001 we really should of done a lot better -
but hey, it's a new era now and we've started all over again.

 

[anonymous Joe]

Bit Harsh premierships are mighty hard to win.

My reasoning is that 1999 we ****ed up, 2001 got done by the better side with fitter players,

players who were good in a good side thought they were worth more. They were traded.

2000 was the greatest season ever.

Others had to leave

None the less we got better players and another tilt isn't to far away.

 

[bozza]

Originally posted by anonymous Joe
My reasoning is that 1999 we ****ed up, 2001 got done by the better side with fitter players,

Exactly right AJ.

Now, why are we talking about the past? Time to move on...

 

[windyhill]

Can`t win `em all.

 

[xlr8r]

i think we have been a bit spoilt,in my lifetime i've seen 4 flags and im only 30,really their would be alot of other teams supporters very envious of that!!!

 

[Darealrath]

Long, Bewick and Wallis were very big losses. Then our whole midfield (ces, barnes, blumfield, mercs, heffernan, caracella, misiti, hird), apart from JJ, decides to get injured and never seem to fully recover in 2001 - and we have to play the best midfield in the comp in the gf...well any wonder we get run over.

2002 was very disappointing though. Something went awfully wrong in some guys heads.

 

[anonymous Joe]

Originally posted by Darealrath
Long, Bewick and Wallis were very big losses. Then our whole midfield (ces, barnes, blumfield, mercs, heffernan, caracella, misiti, hird), apart from JJ, decides to get injured and never seem to fully recover in 2001 - and we have to play the best midfield in the comp in the gf...well any wonder we get run over.

2002 was very disappointing though. Something went awfully wrong in some guys heads.

Yes the normally cool Caracella missed a few shots against Port. But hey we got Mcphee and Cupido

 

[BomberGal]

I don't think you should be looking directly after 2000 - more after 2001. Don't forget, we only lost four games in 2001, and played in a Grand Final, where we were beaten by a better team. Whilst we didn't get to the heights of 2000, we were still pretty damn good in '01. There was just a team better than us. Also, you might have to look at the motivation factor. In 2000, the drive was incredible. It was all about showing we were the best, to atone for '99, and so on. Yet, after winning a Premiership, you would imagine that sort of motivation/hunger would dwindle. Sure, there is the motivation to go back-to-back, but I don't think much could come close to the desire the team felt to make up for that preliminary final loss.

A big factor would have to be the luck, or lack of, with injuries. In 2000, we were virtually injury (and suspension) free, so we had a full fit list to choose from. Such good luck couldn't last forever. Our injury wracked list over the past couple of years has been a big factor in the lower finish. (I know, it sounds like excuses, but they're true ones at that.)

Also, you can't keep a good list together forever (well, if you live south of the Murray...) We retained most of our 2000 list, which meant the team was primarily the same in '01, but after that we had to start losing players. The loss of Hardwick hurt both the team's level as a whole, and the players themselves. Plus losing a large chunk of our senior players, and then the cuts last year...we had/have a far different list to that of 2000, so we can hardly expect it to be as good.

I think the main point is that it was always going to be very hard to replicate 2000. And at least we won one.

 

[IceTemple]

I know we like to have a bit of a go at Brissies sal cap freedom however IMO some of our players got very greedy while Brisbane have got a bunch of players who are playing well below what they are worth.

I'm not sure how much this might count as well but at Essendon we/they have a history of winning that we can look at. Brisbane had NOTHING. At the moment they are creating Brisbane's history that others can look at from the future. How much might this be affecting the psyche of all the Brisbane players and staff?

 

[Ari]

It's simple. We SHOULD have won 2 GF's with the "TEAM OF THE CENTURY" as so many media folk put it.

We didn't. We choked. We failed.

In 1999 we lost as Carlton just came out underdog and did the job on us.

 

[Tasroo]

I forgot 1999. Essendon could have easily been going for 6 in a row this year! That would have been something special.