Will the droughts ever end?!?!

[gocatsgo]

Many have tried, most have failed.

Since 1967 only Richmond, Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn, North and Collingwood (once) have won premierships. (excluding Eagles and Crows)

St'Kilda haven't won since 1966,
Melbourne haven't won since 1964,
Geelong haven't won since 1963,
Bulldogs haven't won since 1954,
Fitzroy didn't win one after 1944, and
Sydney/South haven't won since 1933.

The problem is, all of the above sides have had chances but have failed at the last couple of hurdles.

StKilda - Grand Finalists 1971 and 1997
Melbourne - Grand Finalists 1988 and 2000, Preliminary Finalists 1987, 1994, 1998
Geelong - Grand Finalists 1967, 1989, 1992, 1994 and 1995 Prliminary Finalists 1980, 1981 and 1991.
Bulldogs - Prliminary Finalists 1985, 1992, 1997, 1998
Fitzroy - Prliminary Finalsists 1986
Sydney - Grand Finalists 1996.

Why can't these 6 (now 5) clubs win when it counts. Is it culture? Is it the players? Is it the supporters? Is it money? Is it a combination of all these? Is it something completely different.

Even Richmond haven't been able to win one since 1980 and Collingwood had so many chances throughout this time, they had to fluke one eventually.

Apart from that, Premierships since 1967 have been dominated by Carlton, Hawthorn, Essendon and to a lesser extent North.

Why is this so?

 

[Richmondfan#1]

That's the way footy works. There are always more dominant teams than others.

 

[Dan26]

Gocatsgo,

I know the answer.

All the teams you mention with big droughts who have failed in Grand Finals, have been underdogs on the day.

The one exception was St.Kilda in 1997. They were favourites.

Geelong was underdog in all 4 Grand Finals (89,92,94,95), as was Sydney in 1996, the Dees in 2000 and 1988.

When Collingwod broke their drought in 1990, they were favourites on the day.

If one of those teams with a long drought can actually dominate the season to such an extent that they start Grand Final day favourite, then maybe they will win one.

But "culture" has got nothing to do with Melbourne's 1988 and 2000 losss. They were outclassed by better teams

 

[Joel]

Culture, it is nothing but culture.

 

[ArdenSt]

gocatsgo

You said quote "to a lesser extent North" when talking about premiership wins since 1967. North have won 4 (1975,1977,1996, 1999) in that time as have Essendon (1984,1985,1993,2000). So I guess it will be to a lesser extent Essendon as well. At least until this time next year anyway!!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

With Sydney and 1996 : let me put it this way

We were only aiming to make the finals this year, but found to our pleasant surprise that our new coach Rodney Eade had unleashed a game-plan on the opposition that caught everyone by surprise, also that year we had Tony Lockett playing at his best and a couple of off-season recruits in Sturat Maxfield and Kevin Dyson really made a bifg difference to our list and we liofted our game accordingly.

As I said we only wanted to make the finals, but found ourselves in a GF instead. We weren't really ready for it and our preparation for the game was shithouse (ie Andrew Dunkley affair). We started well eneough but then our nerves got the better of us and there you have it - the more professional and experienced North kept their heads and ran away with it in the end.

At Sydney we were happy to make the GF and that rather 'soft' attitude carried on into 1997 as well - Our pre-season was not good and although we played very well for most of the H&A season we hit a wall at the wrong time, limped into the finals and went out in the first week.

Same thing 1998 - started quite well, got badly beaten by St Kilda then struggled for the rest of year. 1999 we fell right away with inconsistent performances and Locketts 1300 goals thing was a massive dirty greeat distraction we could have done without.

We wanted to prove that 1996 was more than just a flash in the pan, but somehow we haven't been able to do that.

Maybe it gets back to our attitude, we were happy just to be there in 96, maybe we haven't had that burning desire to get back there quite as much as clubs like Essendon in 2000 or North Melbourne in 1975 or 1999.

Dunno really - but it bloody hurts I can tell you !!

 

[walshy1993]

i think melbourne have a chance in the next few years
and then geelong and the bulldogs in the next ten years
for the others i think the future is pretty bleak

 

[gocatsgo]

ArdenSt.

I said North, because apart from the last 7 years, they haven't been a consistently strong side. - Wait here me out.

Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn have very rarely finished near the bottom in the last 30 years. Occasionally, they have.

North have had 5 years at the top from 1974-1978 and 7 years at the top from 1994-2000. Apart from that, they have only made the finals a couple of times in the 80s and in 1993. The rest of the time they have been fairly low on the ladder.

I grant you the fact they have won as many Grand Finals as Essendon, but there is no-way they have appeared in as many finals as Essendon during this time.

Essendon made the finals in 1981-1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000. They also should have won the premierships in 1996 and 1999, but failed come preliminary final day, both times by a point.

The Consistently strong teams are Richmond up until 1980. Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn and Collingwood. How often during the 70s and early 80s were at least 4 of thesse teams in the finals? I can't remember a finals series that didn't include at 2 of these teams.

North are the only team to have successfully broken a drought. 1925-1975 and 1977-1996. How do you do it, apart from stealing players from other clubs?

 

[Groucho]

gocatsgo, more research please! Since 1967 North have appeared in the finals on 19 occasions for 4 flags and Essendon has 19 appearances for 4 flags as well. You have also failed to mention that through most of the 70's the Dons were a pretty ordinary outfit. I don't think you can say they "should have" won flags as that's irrelevant because they didn't! What players have we stolen? Bearing in mind that stealing is illegal,please point out how we broke the (football) law.

 

[Jaffa]

Essendon were never going to win the premiership in 1996. I don't know what people base that on.

When you take a closer look at that season, Essendon finished the H&A season in 6th place. They then got a home final in week 2 against the Eagles when they should've played in Perth. Like Carlton in 1999.

North were clearly the best team in 1996. Essendon were never really in it. Losing two finals by a point interstate was a great effort. Yet Essendon are always competitive in finals. North would've taken care of them in the GF if Essendon had of made it though.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Right or wrong, a lot of Eagle-people felt robbed in '96. We were in amazing form coming into the finals (mmmm, nothing like killing Carlton in a final

), and might have given the flag a shake. The whole MCC agreement had an effect for the first time in the next game, causing a lot of confusion and turmoil (suggestions of legal action etc). Essendon might have still killed us over here, but I think the game would have a lot more even....

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Jaffa:
North were clearly the best team in 1996. Essendon were never really in it. Losing two finals by a point interstate was a great effort. Yet Essendon are always competitive in finals. North would've taken care of them in the GF if Essendon had of made it though.

Hey Dan24, someone is saying North were clearly the best in 1996 yet North finished 2nd on the ladder that year...

does it make ya think????

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by gocatsgo:
ArdenSt.

I said North, because apart from the last 7 years, they haven't been a consistently strong side. - Wait here me out.

Carlton, Essendon, Hawthorn have very rarely finished near the bottom in the last 30 years. Occasionally, they have.

North have had 5 years at the top from 1974-1978 and 7 years at the top from 1994-2000. Apart from that, they have only made the finals a couple of times in the 80s and in 1993. The rest of the time they have been fairly low on the ladder.

I grant you the fact they have won as many Grand Finals as Essendon, but there is no-way they have appeared in as many finals as Essendon during this time.

Essendon made the finals in 1981-1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000. They also should have won the premierships in 1996 and 1999, but failed come preliminary final day, both times by a point.

The Consistently strong teams are Richmond up until 1980. Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn and Collingwood. How often during the 70s and early 80s were at least 4 of thesse teams in the finals? I can't remember a finals series that didn't include at 2 of these teams.

North are the only team to have successfully broken a drought. 1925-1975 and 1977-1996. How do you do it, apart from stealing players from other clubs?

Gocatsgo...

You are a very sad person in deed, if you can't acknowledge, since 1967 The North Melbourne Football Club has not be equal if not better then The Essendon Football Club...

No wonder Leigh your captain left...

by memory until 1983 Essendon could not get past an elimination final.

 

[Dan26]

Well, since 1967 (why are we starting in 1967 ?), Essendon and North have both made the finals 19 times.

Both have won 4 Grand Finals (although Essendon won in 1962 and 1965)

In that time, Essendon finished on top of the ladder (i.e were the best team) on SIX occasions. The Roos could only do it three times (1978,83,98)

Essendon also won 6 night premierships in this time, while the Roos won 3.

In this time period, North also "won" 3 wooden spoons in 1968, 1970 and 1972. Essendon never really came close to getting a wooden spoon, despite some poor years in the 70's.

North were also responsible for fielding the weakest premiership team of the 1990's. The 1999 premiership team, was, in my opinion, the weakest side to win a Grand Final in my lifetime.

Yeah North can gloat because a premiership is a premiership, no matter what. But having the WORST defence in the top 8, and a pathetic percentage of 115 (In 2000 Essendon had a percentage of 160!), make the North team of 1999 the worst team in that decade to win a flag. Yeah, they still won it, but no one respects them as the best (just my opinion)

In fact, none of Norths 4 premierships were won by outstanding teams. None of their 4 Grand Final winning teams finished at the head of the ladder, and on two occasions, only finished third. Norths 1996 team was probably their strongest. 3 of Essendons 4 premierships were won by super outstanding teams, with the exception of 1993, when we were the best in an even year.

So, I think it is a fair comment to say that the Dons have been better than North since 1967. Look at some of the teams we have fielded ! The 1985 and 2000 premiership teams would shit all over any of Norths 4 Grand Final winning teams.

 

[Dan26]

Rooboy,

I know someone was saying that North were the best in 1996. This doesn't mean they are right. North were very similar to Sydney in 1996.

Both had 16 Home and away wins (the Swans had a draw), and both had similar percentages.

In their only Home and Away meeting, Sydney won by about 13 goals.

The Grand Final, naturally at the MCG, was advantageous for North due to the fact it was their home ground. Sydney matched it with them, and at half time, the scores were basically level.

Then North ran away in the second half.

If you are basing Norths second half of the 1996 Grand Final as a reason why they were better then Sydney over the WHOLE year, than that's pretty stupid. So one hour of footy means that North were clearly a better team than Sydney does it ?

I believe Sydney were an excellent team in 1996, but were not good enough ON THE DAY against the Roos. I certainly don't believe North were clearly the best over the year. If North were so good, why didn't they win enough games to finish on top ? Explain that ? If they were so good, they would have won more games than Sydney wouldn't they ?
Well, wouldn't they ?

North and Sydney were about even in 1996. Enough said. They were two very evenly matched teams.

 

[Dan26]

Correction :

Essendon finished on top SEVEN times (not 6) from 1967 onwards, whie North could only manage that feat three times. Both clubs won 4 Grand Finals in that time.

Sorry about that.

 

[Gonzo]

Originally posted by Dan24:

So, I think it is a fair comment to say that the Dons have been better than North since 1967. Look at some of the teams we have fielded ! The 1985 and 2000 premiership teams would shit all over any of Norths 4 Grand Final winning teams.

What makes this a "fair comment" Dan??

when these teams play against each other and we get a result then we can discuss it - till then it is just conjecture and opinion - not fair comment!!!

my 2 cents

Cheers

Gonzo

 

[gocatsgo]

Dan24. Well said.

Essendon have clearly been a better team than North since 1967. Essendon won flags in the 60s as well. North didn't.

The reason I started at 1967 was that the droughts began from 1966 back - 1966 being StKilda's premiership, 1964 Melbourne, 1963 Geelong etc.

 

[Dan26]

Gocatsgo,

No doubt about it.

7 top spot finishes, 4 flags, and NO wooden spoons since 1967 is better than :

3 top spot finishes, 4 flags, and 3 wooden spoons since 1967.

And Gonzo, are you trying to tell me, Norths 1975, or 77, or 96, or 99 teams could have beaten Essendons 2000 or 1985 teams. Give me a break. Please, mate. I know you can have your opinipon, but come on !!!!

 

[jod23]

Gocatsgo jus wondering why you exclude West Coast and Adelaide??

Dan24 i think 89 Hawthorn and 92 West Coast would beat 2000 Essendon.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Don't start on that little exercise in futility Dan24

You know as well as I do that it is impossible to compare champion teams from different eras.

How would you know whether Essendon 2000 would beat Hawthorn 1988, Melbourne 1956 or even Collingwood 1929 ?

They are different teams, playing different styles of game, at different paces, with different standards of fitness, foot and hand skills and umpiring.

Essendon 2000 is an awesome otfit that carried all before it, sure - I'm not taking anything away from that fact but are they better than these other champion teams from days gone by :

Hawthorn late 80's
Essendon mid 80's
North Melbourne mid 70's
Melbourne mid 50's - mid 60's
South Melbourne 1930's
Collingwood late 20's
Essendon early 10's
Carlton mid 00's
Fitzroy early 00's

I don't know, and whats more I will never know because it is impossible to really compare them.

The game is moving so quickly these days that it is not even particulary helpful to compare Essendon this year with Carlton of 1995. That was 5 years ago and the game has become much more competitive and professional in those few years.

 

[gocatsgo]

Jod23

The Eagles have been in the competition since 1987

The Crows have been in the competition since 1991.

They both have won 2 Premierships, but neither of them can say they have had a premiership drought like the other teams listed. Or have dominated Premierships in the past like Essendon, Carlton etc.

 

[RICE80SF]

There's no way we would have beaten the Roos' in '96, even if we went in injury free, which we would not have. The Roos were clearly the better side in '96.

Having said that, Dan shot you down in flames Rooboy, nothing like those wooden spoons

.


------------------
RED & BLACK BACK to BACK 2001!

 

[Pessimistic]

It is hard to compare teams from different Eras. But it would be interesting to see how a 88/89 Hawthorn would react to the 'aggression' used by the Dons on saturday

I was at a pre-game function where Dermie said that the Hawks of '85 couldn't come anywhere near the Bombers of that year, yet the Hawks team of 86/88/89/91 was totally dominant, well lauded but had the same core of hardmen/winners that they had in 85. I guess the interstate recruits made the difference (Platten Buckenara etc)

 

[Rooboy 96]

Rice... nothing like finishing 14th either...

But then I don't know... never been there...