Opinion Who wins? 2002 Premiership Team vs Brisbane Lions 2023

[martinson]

Impossible to compare teams or individuals from different eras.

You can only beat the best in the era you played in.

The team of 2001+ did that. Within the same environment ,training ,rules ,coaching and development opportunities as their peers.

The team of 2023 has yet to do that , but hopefully that lay ahead.

 

[dlanod]

Sigmund Freud would have fun with that.

View attachment 1792525
“I tipped this!”

The Voss on Voss sledge could be taken to its ultimate form.

 

[dlanod]

Do you mean the 2023 team from last week, or the 2023 Grand Final team that includes Gunston?

 

[fugitive]

The biggest question mark with 2023 would still be the mental demons that possess them under pressure, I guess we will find out in just under a week, how much progress the boys have made in exorcising them. While the 2002 team played their best footy in September both mentally and physically.

 

[KissKiss]

Ok. Now that’s sorted, how do people think Brandon Starcevich would go on Akermanis if, for the purposes of the hypothetical, he lined up in a forward pocket? You would have to think Akermanis would be trying to drag Starcevich up the field and beat him in the sprint back to goals, in much the same manner that Cameron does.

What is Starcevich’s tank like? Could he try to run with Akermanis?

With the differences in how the game is played very few of the 2002 players would have the tanks of the modern players (except maybe Rayner). The 2002 mids might be ok but all of the key position players would get blown up from their opponents working up and down the ground.

Of course if you played in the 2002 rules the modern players would get brutalised. The amount of contact, bumps, fists to the head, etc would be an adjustment

 

[3KZ is Football]

With the differences in how the game is played very few of the 2002 players would have the tanks of the modern players (except maybe Rayner). The 2002 mids might be ok but all of the key position players would get blown up from their opponents working up and down the ground.

Of course if you played in the 2002 rules the modern players would get brutalised. The amount of contact, bumps, fists to the head, etc would be an adjustment

Indeed

 

[M Malice]

When I see these fantasy type questions comparing eras I always assume that the side/player from history has been trained and developed in a modern system when comparing.

Historic champion players and teams would 99% of the time be champions now IMO.

 

[BigCat2]

When I see these fantasy type questions comparing eras I always assume that the side/player from history has been trained and developed in a modern system when comparing.

Historic champion players and teams would 99% of the time be champions now IMO.

True. It's like saying who is better Don Bradman or Stephen Smith. I'd say Smith, but that's because Bradman has been dead for 22 years.

 

[buttermuffs]

I think Andrews would struggle with Lynch and Brown would be very hard to contain. I think it would be a battle of the forward lines, because I could see the 2023 forward line getting on top.

At the same time there’s a whole lot more professionalism and athleticism and gone are the days where you can easily find a lead inside forward fifty with the amount of flooding done.

I think 2002 are better era adjusted but I reckon 2023 would always have an extra number or two wherever the ball goes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[3KZ is Football]

It would actually be very interesting to know how much training, especially running benchmarks have changed from 2002 to 2023. For example, if you consider the pre-season running and expectations in 2002 are they that different today? Skin folds still a thing? When Brownie was on the podcast with Hugh and Cam he was talking about the monster weights they used to bench in the gym and the level of competition around how much a person could press. You could tell that McCluggage and Rayner thought the 2002 weights records were ‘crazy numbers’ so clearly things have changed there. I wonder what an average training looked like in 2002 compared to now. Knowing these things does help us to maybe know much the physical requirements of the players has changed. If the training and preparation is largely the same, I think it is safe to say that the biggest adjustment would have to be how the game was played and who was able to impose their style or counter their opponents.

 

[dlanod]

At the same time there’s a whole lot more professionalism and athleticism and gone are the days where you can easily find a lead inside forward fifty with the amount of flooding done.

I think 2002 are better era adjusted but I reckon 2023 would always have an extra number or two wherever the ball goes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Brown worked well even in the flooding late in his time because of his leading ability, but as much as I love Lynch he would be easy prey for a third man up to sit next to him clogging up space the whole time.

 

[martinson]

Brown worked well even in the flooding late in his time because of his leading ability, but as much as I love Lynch he would be easy prey for a third man up to sit next to him clogging up space the whole time.

Lynchy had his best years at Brisbane when he was actually way past his best.

There was a period for about a year and a half at Fitzroy when he played most positions from full back to anywhere in the forward line and on the ball where he was the best player in the game. Unreal athleticism and toughness.

Hence the 10 year deal ? that Brisbane put in front of him ,unprecedented at the time. We only played him full forward because that was about the only position he could play after his illness.

If I look back at the 2001+ teams there are players in there that wouldn't get anywhere near a game now because of the athletic /tank requirements of the game and there are players in our team now who just wouldn't have lasted long with the physical requirements of 2001.

Still if Browny was at his top now he'd be unstoppable imo because he had a big tank and used to run his opponents around from the first bounce. I'd only need to take say 4 players from our 2001 group and pop them in our team now and we'd be unbeatable. Aker on a wing would just tear it up without the extreme physicality he had to deal with every week.

It's easy to say that because champions from any era don't come along all that often in the one team and we had 7 or 8 in the early 2000's. The game has changed dramatically and is now more team/structure/ gameplan focused so you're not comparing like for like.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Brown worked well even in the flooding late in his time because of his leading ability, but as much as I love Lynch he would be easy prey for a third man up to sit next to him clogging up space the whole time.

I agree. Lynch would be vulnerable if he was stationary and just trying to out body. That’s where Bradshaw comes in, although he didn’t play in 2002 GF. Using the 2002 list, I would play Brown deep and have him leading to the 50, while dropping Headland into a forward pocket. Lynch may well be shut down, but if they double team him Brown and Headland will cause grief.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Lynchy had his best years at Brisbane when he was actually way past his best.

There was a period for about a year and a half at Fitzroy when he played most positions from full back to anywhere in the forward line and on the ball where he was the best player in the game. Unreal athleticism and toughness.

Hence the 10 year deal ? that Brisbane put in front of him ,unprecedented at the time. We only played him full forward because that was about the only position he could play after his illness.

If I look back at the 2001+ teams there are players in there that wouldn't get anywhere near a game now because of the athletic /tank requirements of the game and there are players in our team now who just wouldn't have lasted long with the physical requirements of 2001.

Still if Browny was at his top now he'd be unstoppable imo because he had a big tank and used to run his opponents around from the first bounce. I'd only need to take say 4 players from our 2001 group and pop them in our team now and we'd be unbeatable. Aker on a wing would just tear it up without the extreme physicality he had to deal with every week.

It's easy to say that because champions from any era don't come along all that often in the one team and we had 7 or 8 in the early 2000's. The game has changed dramatically and is now more team/structure/ gameplan focused so you're not comparing like for like.

The thing with Lynch was that there were a number of versions of him. There was Lynch the defender, the Robert Shaw 1992 / 1993 version at Fitzroy as a forward, which was very compelling. Finally there were the Power Forward years at Brisbane. Each stage entertaining and each testament to his skill as a footballer.
Have a look at him in this game against the reigning Premiers West Coast Eagles on their home ground in Perth. He is unstoppable. He ended up kicking 6 that night.

 

[3KZ is Football]

When I see these fantasy type questions comparing eras I always assume that the side/player from history has been trained and developed in a modern system when comparing.

Historic champion players and teams would 99% of the time be champions now IMO.

I agree, which is why I asked the question about pre-season, conditioning and training. If they are basically the same across the period of time in question, then I would expect similar output capacity.

 

[M Malice]

It would actually be very interesting to know how much training, especially running benchmarks have changed from 2002 to 2023. For example, if you consider the pre-season running and expectations in 2002 are they that different today? Skin folds still a thing? When Brownie was on the podcast with Hugh and Cam he was talking about the monster weights they used to bench in the gym and the level of competition around how much a person could press. You could tell that McCluggage and Rayner thought the 2002 weights records were ‘crazy numbers’ so clearly things have changed there. I wonder what an average training looked like in 2002 compared to now. Knowing these things does help us to maybe know much the physical requirements of the players has changed. If the training and preparation is largely the same, I think it is safe to say that the biggest adjustment would have to be how the game was played and who was able to impose their style or counter their opponents.

I have posted this before but I went to a pre season training session at Coorparoo in the 3Peat era and I was astounded with the amount of running they did, there was one particular running drill where the players did around a half an hour of length of the field sprints... sprint walk back sprint rinse repeat, there was a lot of just running laps as well. IIRC it was one of their first sessions back from their end of season break and I'm certain it was after the 2nd or 3rd flag.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I have posted this before but I went to a pre season training session at Coorparoo in the 3Peat era and I was astounded with the amount of running they did, there was one particular running drill where the players did around a half an hour of length of the field sprints... sprint walk back sprint rinse repeat, there was a lot of just running laps as well. IIRC it was one of their first sessions back from their end of season break and I'm certain it was after the 2nd or 3rd flag.

So it would be fair to say the running capacity was about the same. Remember too that in 2002 there wasn’t the constant rotation of players on and off the bench. If the 2002 players were resting to the same extent, you would expect them to be able to run games right out.

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

Brown worked well even in the flooding late in his time because of his leading ability, but as much as I love Lynch he would be easy prey for a third man up to sit next to him clogging up space the whole time.

Lynch's great strength was his great strength in the marking contest. The resting ruckman rarely took marks in our forward line as Lynch would bring the ball down. The rucks didn't man up nearly as much as now so I don't see that Lynch would have any more players around him now.

McStay and Hipwood have improved their kicking for goal. I wonder if the modern coaching could get Lynch to kick straight.

 

[FFB1]

2002 cos, you know, “COLA” (which we never got, but try telling that to any non Lions supporter). Retention aside, I think that team would brush aside the 2023 version.

 

[FFB1]

I wonder if the modern coaching could get Lynch to kick straight.

Interesting, Lynch went at @64%, Hipwood going at @57%. Reckon Lynch kicked plenty more than Hipwood has within 15m of goal though.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I have enjoyed this thread. Lots of great contributions. I voted 2002, but the Poll is more one sided than I thought it would be.

 

[dlanod]

I have enjoyed this thread. Lots of great contributions. I voted 2002, but the Poll is more one sided than I thought it would be.

The memory of the threepeat Lions are a mature physical bunch and people will always err on that over the modern game IMO. Although it's funny rewatching the game and seeing how many kicks do not hit a man, either laying it out in space and hoping your player gets there first or straight up to no one - you simply wouldn't get away with that these days, because there isn't the space and there's always multiple defenders around.

I can't find hard stats but I also feel that a big part of that strength and maturity is because our average age was substantially higher then compared to now. I think most players in that team were in their late 20s (which is why there was a big drop-off a couple of years later), whereas now we're actually still a pretty young team once outliers like Gunston are excluded - most in their mid 20s, and hence probably a bit younger than the 2002 team.

 

[M Malice]

When this current Lions side wins their own 3Peat 2023-25 then the discussion will get interesting.

 

[3KZ is Football]

The memory of the threepeat Lions are a mature physical bunch and people will always err on that over the modern game IMO. Although it's funny rewatching the game and seeing how many kicks do not hit a man, either laying it out in space and hoping your player gets there first or straight up to no one - you simply wouldn't get away with that these days, because there isn't the space and there's always multiple defenders around.

I can't find hard stats but I also feel that a big part of that strength and maturity is because our average age was substantially higher then compared to now. I think most players in that team were in their late 20s (which is why there was a big drop-off a couple of years later), whereas now we're actually still a pretty young team once outliers like Gunston are excluded - most in their mid 20s, and hence probably a bit younger than the 2002 team.

These are good points. The 2001-2003 teams achieved so much and performed so heroically that their standing has grown over time. By 2002 many of the players were seasoned campaigners, having won a premiership in 2001 and playing finals in 1997, 1999, 2000. Many of these players had an amazing run, making 4 GF’s, winning 3 Premierships and playing finals in 7 out of 8 seasons.

This sort of success has created an ‘aura’ - but they still lost their share of games over the same period. I think you are right M Malice. The current side is settled and most have had a taste of Finals in 2019, 2020, 2021 and / or 2022. Comparing the two eras is actually making me quietly confident. If we can win the flag this year, these players will benefit from the same glorification and some of us will surely rank them more highly.

 

[Tom14]

True. It's like saying who is better Don Bradman or Stephen Smith. I'd say Smith, but that's because Bradman has been dead for 22 years.

I agree, but it'd be a suprisingly close contest between the corpse of the Don and former Labor Minister and current High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, Stephen Smith.

Of course, Steven Peter Devereux Smith probably has them both covered.