Who would win? The '85, or 2000 team?

[Dan26]

Well?

 

[walshy1993]

if the 85 team was playing now with the current fitness levels and technology they would win hands down
if you dont take those sort of things into consideration then the 2000 team would get the nod due to superior fitness etc

oh and which team would sheeds coach?

[This message has been edited by walshy1993 (edited 11 December 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Sheeds would coach both, of course.

Remember, the Sheeds of '85 was different to the Sheeds of 2000.

I'd pick the 2000 team. In 2000, we had a percentage of 160, and in 1985, we had a percentage of 138, indicating we were "about" 20 points beter in 2000, if you go by the numbers.

There were no weaknesses in either team. Both were clinical and ruthless. The 1985 team did have three heavy losses though, indicating, that when things went bad (which was rarely), they couldn't turn it around. All 3 losses in 1985 were by over 40 points.

If the 2000 team is NOT rated above the 1985 team, my question is why not ? What else could the 2000 team have possibly done ?
Did they not win enough games, or something? Did they not win by big enough margins (percentage of 160!!!!)

I don't think there is anything else the 2000 team could have done (except for that one more win), so I would rate the 2000 team above the 1985 team.

 

[walshy1993]

dan i have to rate any side with madden, daniher and watson higher
not to mention van der haar, thompson and harvey amoung others

but then of course there is lloyd, hird long, fletcher
its just to hard

 

[Grendel]

Going by Walshys thoughts on fitness levels and training all being equal then 85 would account for 2000. As to no weakness in either sides, there are shortcomings in both, no rovers in the 2000 side and only one shortish ruckman. Against that the 85 side didnt have as much run/flanking class, but thats the nature of the beast nowdays. 85 simply on the basis they were bigger and meaner, plus Madden would destroy Barnes giving Williams and Watson an arm chair ride. Fletcher would have his work cut out on a young Salmon (bigger and just as quick) plus Weston could hold lloyd.
Just an outsiders view who saw a fair bit of both.

 

[Pessimistic]

I didn't see the '85 side but Dermie at a GF Breakfast said the Hawks didn't think they could touch them, and would need a special 'plan' if they were to hope to win.
Given the Record of the Hawks side from 83-89 you would have to say that the '85 Essendon side had much better opposition than the 2000 team. Given that salary cap (rorting aside) has made the rest of the competition much more even, with no standout team.

Remember that Melbourne, although they had som good games in the season, were in reality not much better than any of the teams ranked 3-10.

As I said before I was in England in '85 but these facts would count for something, wouldn't they ?

 

[goatmaster]

Good topic Dan always like the hypotheticals
Seems like this topic gets its fair share of the Hawtorn supporters in doesn't it? 3 now
a big issue is under which rules? The fairy fart game of today or the mid 80's brawling?
Remember so much of the Essendon plan of the 80's was about slowing the game down & knocking the others around so thier size would wear oppostion sides down the 50m penalty was introduced because of Sheeys tactic of if the opposition mark it knock them down give away 15m we will beat them in the next marking contest .
Todays team runs oppostion into the dirt. Hence if played under 80's rules 85 by a mile todays rules probably the current team.

------------------
Goatmaster
the prime minister of the principality of Mooball

 

[James2]

Hmmm interesting.

I'm going to sit on the fence, but I will make a few statements.

1) Which Essendon 2000 player would match up on L Baker?

2) Ditto P. Van Der Haar?

3) Which 1985 player would play on J Hird?? Remember that they would have to be able to play as a defender as well as a midfielder.

4) I'm not convinced that Salmon would be MUCH of a problem. Although he was quicker back then, he had just come back from a major knee injury and was down on confidence- his own admission.

5) Lloyd would beat Weston easily.




------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.

 

[walshy1993]

watson v hird

now that ive gotta see, providing the bot played in the midfield

daniher v lucas
weston v lloyd
madden v barnes
salmon v fletcher

how about hardwick v harvey
that would be a great battle
thompson v mercuri

its just to good to think about

 

[sandie]

Who would you match up with bustlin billy.
It is also to hard to say which team is better, I have considered it, but the two eras are so different, fitness, speed, rules & skills, it is difficult to say. I would only pick the 85 side over 2000 because of their toughness.
Cheers


------------------
mantis

 

[The invisible mullet]

The 85 side was better without a doubt. I'd love to see Billy Duckworth sorting Lloyd or Hird out.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Legends as they are, the 1985 team would struggle to stay within 10 goals of the 2000 outfit.

Setting aside massive differences in fitness, strength, stamina, skills and team strategies for a moment, it really boils down to this :

1985 a team of champions
2000 a champion team

no contest

cheers

 

[Dan26]

BSA

The 2000 team was a team of champions AND a champion team.

As was the 1985 team.

I cannot beliee there are people who think the '85 side would win. Even if the 1985 side had the same training techniques and modern day practices, they would still lose to the 2000 side.

The 2000 side went 21-1 with a percentage of 160.

The 1985 side went 19-3 with a percentage of 138.

Based on stats alone, the 2000 team, is therefore about 20 odd points better. The question I ask, is if the 2000 team couldn't beat the 1985 team after amassing 21-1 with a percentage of 160, then what in the hell would they have to do?

Would it take a 22-0 season, with a percentage of 200 to convince people? The 2000 team had the best attack, best defence and champions on every line. The 1985 was also choc full of champions. But in 2000, we were unbeatable (well, almost)

Once again, I ask - What else could the 2000 team have done to convince people they were better than 1985? There is NOTHING else they could have done. Nothing. Like I said, would they have to have gone 22-0 to convince people they were better than '85.

The 2000 team would win.

 

[The invisible mullet]

Dan24 take a valium. We will never know who was the better team. For my money the 85 team would be able to expose the weaknesses in the 2000 team which their contemporaries were less equipped to do - the ruck is obviously one area where the Dons of 85 would be well ahead. The Dons of 2000 would struggle to matchup Tim Watson.

 

[Grendel]

The 85 team played in a competition of twelve teams with the lists being as deep and as best could be provided from all states with no restrictions on salary caps or recruiting.

The 2000 team played in a 16 side competition with salary cap restricted recruiting and limits to the list.

Depth of talent in a twelve team league is of course going to be stronger than in a 16 team league. To say that just because one sides win loss record makes them better for that is just quoting stats without any other justifiable back up.


Or to put it another way, there was a damn sight more better teams in 85 than there was in 2000. The Bombers side of that era went 19/3 in a stronger more competitive field yet for the sake of TWO more wins your declaring the 2000 side a ten goal better outfit. Thats garbage Dan.

Better Rucks equate to the ball being fed to the onballers, Watson and Baker would milk in the centre feeding of Madden who would DESTROY Barnes. Weston loved non physical types, perfect match up for Lloyd. Give the most underated 300 gamer in Foulds first shot at Hird, might not beat him but no way would he be totally disgraced. If not then mr.versatile himself TD would do the job quite nicely. Salmon WOULD be to talented for Fletcher Merrett was a fierce prescence that year, you have nobody who could stop him creating paths for the smaller blokes. Wallis on Roger? Please hed chew him and spit out the pieces.

Bigger more talented over all lines. Six out and out champions in the likes of TD,Merrett,Madden,Watson,Baker,Salmon against ONE out and out champ from the current side Hird (and hes the only one regardless of what anyone says about him).

Give me the 85 side, let me coach them in last years comp, with all the mod cons of today and they would win the 2000 flag as well.

 

[Dan26]

I disagree, Grendel.

There might not have been many outstanding teams in 2000, but there weren't in 1985 either. The 1985, and 2000 win-loss records were achieved against ALL opponents over a long period of time.

The 2000 team had champions on every line too. The passing of time, makes us "think" past sides were better. It's a bit like how the 1989 Grand Final seems to get better and better as the years go by. I'm sure in 15 years time, people will be in awe of the 2000 team.

I ask once again :

If the 2000 team is NOT considered better than the 1985 team after amassing 24-1 with a percentage 22% better than the 1985 team..........then WHY ? Why ?

What in the hell should the 2000 team have done in order to be called better? Would it have taken a percentage of 200 ? !!!!!!

The 2000 team couldn't possibliy have done any more, in making us believe they were better than 1985. If you say 1985 was better, then you are basically saying it is impossible to beat the 1985 side. But you have to remember, the 2000 team couldn't possibly have done any better. It IS possible to beat the 1985 side, and the record that the 2000 team amassed should prove this. It was "close" to impossible to beat the 2000 side.

So please answer the question:

What would the 2000 team have to have done in order to be called better?

Well.......What would the 2000 team have to have done in order to be called better?

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Grendel:
The 85 team played in a competition of twelve teams with the lists being as deep and as best could be provided from all states with no restrictions on salary caps or recruiting.

The 2000 team played in a 16 side competition with salary cap restricted recruiting and limits to the list.

Depth of talent in a twelve team league is of course going to be stronger than in a 16 team league. To say that just because one sides win loss record makes them better for that is just quoting stats without any other justifiable back up.

Or to put it another way, there was a damn sight more better teams in 85 than there was in 2000. The Bombers side of that era went 19/3 in a stronger more competitive field yet for the sake of TWO more wins your declaring the 2000 side a ten goal better outfit.

Grendel,

Wouldn't the league in 2000 be more competitive then the one in 1985, specifically because of salary caps and other restrictions.

The salary cap and other measure's are there to provide an "even playing field" for all clubs that are in the AFL. That is, that there isn't much difference of "quality" between the clubs. (Apart from the very top teams and the lowest teams)

This was not the case in '85.

Thus it would be "harder" for the Essendon team of 2000 to win games, and as many as they did, compared to the '85 side.

 

[Dan26]

I'm still waiting on a response.

What would the 2000 team need to have done in order to be called better than 1985 ?

 

[James2]

Grendal,

Whilst your arguement has some valid points, I believe that you are unfairly judging the ability of the current team, many of whom have their best ahead of them, against players who have been retired for years, giving people the chance to make a judgement on their careers. Who is to say that in 20 years, Lloyd, Lucas, Heffernan, Blumfield etc, will not be considered players in the class of Baker, Watson??

Of course, all ex posto facto comparisons such as this, encounter the same problems.

Cheers.

------------------
"Be not afraid of greatness."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by James2:
Grendal,

Whilst your arguement has some valid points, I believe that you are unfairly judging the ability of the current team, many of whom have their best ahead of them, against players who have been retired for years, giving people the chance to make a judgement on their careers. Who is to say that in 20 years, Lloyd, Lucas, Heffernan, Blumfield etc, will not be considered players in the class of Baker, Watson??

Of course, all ex posto facto comparisons such as this, encounter the same problems.

Cheers.

James,

Maybe we arn't talking about how many "class" players each side has or will have in the future (2000 team, that is).

Were just talking about who's going to win the game if these two sides played against one another.

 

[Grendel]

Dan, i will respond but at least wait until im online okay.

Look im not saying your current outfit cant play, far from it. But your measuring a side in a competition that has been nurtured to produce EVENESS across the board. That theyve managed (through somewhat dubious means or not) to subvert that and take throught the record that they have, full credit to them. Besdies what does percentage have to do with 85 and 2000 going head to head in a contest?? Leave the stats alone for a minute and look at the actual players in representation of the two side that lined up GF day.

However i stand by what i said, no outstanding teams in 85? Hell we were still pretty good, the Doggies of the time had there best side for years, the Blues as always were thereabouts, the Roys and Roos were both excellent sides with the Cats handy at home too, a bloke called G.Ablett making like difficult down there. Dont sell the old timers short my friend. There was a very good comp going back then, wish we still had it. But im getting off track here, back to topic.


Whoever said about the draw being harder now. How so? More players to more clubs, means the qualitys spread thinner over those clubs. Sure we may have missed some interstate champs, but by god we also recruited alot of them back in the VFL days. I still think it was a more competitive competition amongst the BETTER sides. Plus the fact they played everyone TWICE still sticks with me for some reason. Sorry if i didnt clarify that point earlier.

Id take any side with a regonised all time great ruckman, a player with the ability to play ANY key possie down the spine except the middle (TD) a champion CHF with rrreeaalll mongrel (Merrett) the ruck rover of the eighties (Watson) and one of those genius types who just turned it on when he felt like it (Baker) wouldnt you, plus a goliath in the goal square who was the MOST fearsome sight imaginable back then. Thats a pretty handy set of players right there.

Of your current crop ONLY Hird meets the criteria to be judged with those guys (Long maybe but the injurys havent helped him). All the rest Lloyd included have a long way to go before being called champions a word thats given out to easily imho.
They also had a true rover in Daisy (very underated though he was soft) Williams. Which the 2000 side doesnt have. Ive given you match ups and the blokes from that era are more than capable of holding their own then theres blokes like Wallis, keyrisst makes K.Walsh look co-ordinated that bloke.

Bottom line is there were more champions in the 85 side than the 2000 side. IF they can go back to back (it aint been done yet btw) then i might change my views. But as it stands the 3rd best side ive seen is still your 85 side. The Hawks of 88/89 still rule

So there it is, no stats, no %'s nothing else. The 85 side had better players thats why they would win. Pretty simple explanation after all that lol!

 

[Dan26]

It's HIGHLY contentious to say that the 1985 side had better players.

I mentioned earlier, that history makes us exaggerate things. The 1989 GF seems to get better and better every year, as people "recall" the game.

In 15 years time, you will be saying how many chmapions (many) were in the 2000 team.

You shouldn't sell Lloyd short, like that. Lloyd is the best full-forward Essendon has had under Sheedy, including Salmon. The 2000 side had an edgs at full-forward.

I can go through the litany of ruck-rovers the 2000 side had like M.Johnson, J Johnson, Mercuri, Misiti, Heffernan, Blumfield, Hird, Soloman, etc etc, but such comparisons are pointless, because there were great players on both sids.

I realise that a 12 team comp should prodce "on average" better teams than a 16 team comp. Less teams mean more depth. But it's not like the comp expanded to 25 teams like American Basketbsall, or Gridiron. In fact, more athletes from NSW, QLD and the ACT are playing the game right NOW than in 1985, making the talent, roughly the same. In 1985, a 22 year old Steven Kernahan was still playing in the SANFL, and was one of the best palyers in the country. He was already a champion at State of Origin level (he kicked 10 goals in 1984). In 2000, he would already have been playing in the AFL by that age.

It is still possible, even in a 16 team comp to produce a team that is just as good, or better than a 12 team comp. There is no rule that says it can't be done.

BUT YOU STILL DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION !!!!

What would the 2000 team need to do, in order to be called BETTER than the 1985 side? Don't say "nothing", because it is possible to produce a side better than 1985. You act as though it's imposible. It's not.

Given that it is POSSIBLE, what would the 2000 team need to have done, that they didn't do, in order to be called better than 1985.

That's the qustion, and still, nobody seems able to answer it

P.S (I believe they can't answer it because the 2000 team is better. That's my opinion)

 

[Grendel]

Bloody hell Dan, the question was who would win, 85 or 2000. I SAID 85, if thats not answering the question i dont know what else to say!!!

Your the one that changed track by bringing in the win/loss percentage stuff.

That wasnt the original issue.

The question was, Head to head Bombers 85 vs Bombers 2000. Id take the old blokes any day of the week, is it clear now???

Bring in names like M.Johnson (Harvey), J Johnson (Thompson), Mercuri(VanderHaar), Misiti(Baker), Heffernan (Williams), Blumfield (Hawker), Hird(Watson), Soloman(Duckworth). Of those id take Harvs Bomber Vanders (close one though) Baker Heff Blum and Ducky. Hird and Watson i cant split.

So back to the same old line, better players pound for pound and they had hard men like Merrett with the indefinable thing called 'presence' (Dermie,Lockett etc all had it too) on the field.

Now has that answered your question at last? The 2000 sides achievments were greater no doubt, never denied it or even mentioned it until you brought it up midway into the thread. Clear on that okay. Better acheivers, not better players or side.

Yet they wouldnt win in a HEAD TO HEAD contest against the 85 side (im labouring the point here) all things being equal, the 85 side was more talented in my view.

And they still BOTH be beaten by the Hawks of 88/89!

Can i go home now please

 

[Hmmmmm]

Great way to start a discussion Dan24. with this one and the one about not reading it im beginning to wonder if thats the best you essendon supports can do.

 

[Grendel]

Okay this time im waiting for the response. Instead of making up pointless topics to get to some strange sort of goal you have to make the most posts on this board (which i still dont get AT ALL, quality not quantity Daniel) why didnt you reply to me?

I still dont know if ive answered your query to your satisfaction or not. Considering that your the one calling for a response, i find it a little strange.

Cheers.