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

[stander]

Was Fletcher playing in both?

This thread has become as pointless as suspected. Two different generations.

Hawks most wonderful defence of 89.... Ablett, how many he slot in that grand final?

Different generations for sure- I saw a lot of both and reckon 85 was more of a foregone conclusion than 2000. The Hawks were beaten before they got on the ground.

 

[Fin ice Smuggler]

For what it's worth i'll add my two cents;

I think the 85 side would win, deserves more credit because it was a reigning premier, would the 2000 side be as good as it was had it won 99, Lloydy said some players lost that 5% edge after 2000? I therefore believe the 85 side deserves more credit.

Really the 2000 side should be compared to the 84 side.

I do recall Sheedy having none of it when asked to compare the 2001 side to the 85 premiers after we beat North in that epic game, dont quote me on exact word but I believe he said 'this team hasn't gone back to back yet, onlhy special teams do that'.

 

[Dan26]

I do recall Sheedy having none of it when asked to compare the 2001 side to the 85 premiers after we beat North in that epic game, dont quote me on exact word but I believe he said 'this team hasn't gone back to back yet, onlhy special teams do that'.

The question is who was better? '85 of 2000?

What has "back-to-back" (or not going back-to-back) got to do with anything?

IF Essendon failed to go back to back in 2001 that has NOTHING to do with how good the 2000 team was, because the comparison was between 2000 and 1985, not 2001 and 1985. Not winning the premiership in 2001 makes absolutely no difference to how good the team was in 2000.

The 1985 side lost 3 games, all of them thrashings. The three games they lost were by 41, 52 and 59 points. Can you imagine Essendon of 2000 losing any game? Let alone 3? Let alone all three by more than 40 points?

Also, one poster said, "Essendon of 1985 had to play the great Hawks side twice in 1985"

Um, unless I'm livng on another planet, 1985 was by far the weakest Hawthorn team of the "7 consecutive years they made the Grasnd Final." It is acknowledge by Hawk fans themselves as by far the weakest. Even Footscray finished above them on the ladder. Hawthorn were not a great side in the year of 1985.

The 2000 Essendon side had a percentage of 163.8% from 25 games, won 3 finals by a combined total of 230 points (a record) and, perhaps most incredibly, had a percentage against the teams in the top 8 of 160%.

Essendon of 1985 was a great side, but Essendon of 2000 was on another planet and they would win easily.

 

[Fin ice Smuggler]

The question is who was better? '85 of 2000?

What has "back-to-back" (or not going back-to-back) got to do with anything?

IF Essendon failed to go back to back in 2001 that has NOTHING to do with how good the 2000 team was, because the comparison was between 2000 and 1985, not 2001 and 1985. Not winning the premiership in 2001 makes absolutely no difference to how good the team was in 2000.

The 1985 side lost 3 games, all of them thrashings. The three games they lost were by 41, 52 and 59 points. Can you imagine Essendon of 2000 losing any game? Let alone 3? Let alone all three by more than 40 points?

Also, one poster said, "Essendon of 1985 had to play the great Hawks side twice in 1985"

Um, unless I'm livng on another planet, 1985 was by far the weakest Hawthorn team of the "7 consecutive years they made the Grasnd Final." It is acknowledge by Hawk fans themselves as by far the weakest. Even Footscray finished above them on the ladder. Hawthorn were not a great side in the year of 1985.

The 2000 Essendon side had a percentage of 163.8% from 25 games, won 3 finals by a combined total of 230 points (a record) and, perhaps most incredibly, had a percentage against the teams in the top 8 of 160%.

Essendon of 1985 was a great side, but Essendon of 2000 was on another planet and they would win easily.

Yawn tiresome argument, 85 was a back to back premier, had more pressure to perform, like when I did your momma in front of you.

 

[gPhonque]

Yawn tiresome argument, 85 was a back to back premier, had more pressure to perform, like when I did your momma in front of you.

You know, although I admit to having a little childish chuckle at that, this post is a perfect example of how the quality of discussion on BigFooty has progressively deteriorated over the past 10 years.

 

[Kong]

I agree. We don't tolerate that sort of thing now, either.

 

[Coldacre]

Yeah shit post, clean up your act Smuggler.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

poor response indeed budgie.

Isn't it great though that we CAN have this discussion, to see 2 great teams in our lifetime.