1982 Premiers vs 2012 Also Rans

[LBJ6]

Melbourne beat a GWS team made up of 17 players with less than 20 games experience and 3 geriatrics by the grand total of 4 goals.



1982 Carlton would go ok.

Right.

Quote the game against GWS where they kick 5 of the last 6 goals of the game in junk time, and Melbourne kicked 11.18 to their 9.5.

Ignore the game that we beat them by 80 points.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Fairly simple really. If it was cold, stright out of the Tardis. melbourne by a mile. Tactics, physical preparation and overall skill levels.

Given 12 months training probably Carlton - they'd be much fitter, stronger and their natural winning mentality and talent would do the job.

 

[sandeano]

Thanks for explaining why Richmond lost that game when in front when she did her run.
Although in Richmonds case it's made you quivering wrecks every year since, except on two occasions.

Lighten up, sunshine.

 

[TheKanga]

Well it's probably safe to say 1999 North would flog 2012 North.

 

[LightTower4]

Lighten up, sunshine.

You should practice what you preach, knackers.

 

[MF]

Any team from 82 or beforehand would be absolutely smashed by any team of 2012. The differences in player builds, speed, conditioning, tactics etc is just far too massive for an older team to compete. Some mid to late 90's teams would probably have a chance against the bottom few teams from this year.

 

[tazhawk]

Tazhawk does not understand concepts that most of us learn at primary school, such as punctuation.

I understand bandwagon and alias though.

 

[Big Kahuna Boot]

..not so sure, ppl will cite superior fitness, training regimes etc etc.. ..but they're ignoring certain aspects as well.. ..modern training is about being more burst players, vs endurance freaks.. ..if modern day players, especially the younger ones, had to play a full 4 quarters with little or no rotations, how would they fare?.. ..also, ppl forget that old teams played on crappy suburban grounds, with high wind and muddy fields.. ..so the idea that skills aren't comparable isn't strictly true in my opinion..

..i think both teams have their own pros and cons, so i'd back a repeat prem side over a bottom team, rergardless..

 

[forwardflanker]

I'd back North '96 versus any Swans grand final side but I think Hawks '12 would have us.

It's odd when you break it all down.

Key matchups Schoenmakers v Carey

 

[forwardflanker]

Once again, it depends which rules are being used. The modern interpretations or those in the '80s. If using the '80s interpretations, Fitzpatrick would not have hesitated to run straight through his taller opponents at the centre bounce to send a very clear message that he intended not to concede the centre bounce. After that he would stand beside them & capitalise on his superior body use, something the modern rucks would know little about.

I would also be fairly confident that the likes of Buckley, Ashman, Harmes, Johnston would go alright in the clearance battles. Their opponents would be constantly looking over their shoulders if they got to the contest first.

lol it doesn't matter what rules are being used, nothing can make up for 30 year gap in conditioning, tactics and sports science.Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded.

 

[FredLeDeux]

There is an absolutely massive difference in average height, weight, strength, speed and skill levels.
There is such a massive difference between the 1982 and 2012 rules, that you couldn't even come up with a workable compromise, you would have to (a) choose one set or the other, and (b) give the teams a reasonable time to prepare for whichever set was chosen.
Under these conditions, it would still be the 2012 team in a massacre.

 

[Slattery_20]

The fitness issue always bemuses me. The players of the 70s and 80s were absolutely flogged on the training track.

There may not have been any sports science but these were very fit endurance athletes.

Sure there were not the running mauls of players across the ground back and forward like today but at the same time most players were on for the entire game and often in much more trying conditions than today.

A player like Rod Ashman would be a superstar in todays game. He was an elite kick. Best I have ever seen at the club.

The Carlton 82 team with Fitzpatrick Doull Ashman Sheldon Glascott Buckley Harmes Bosustow Maclure Johnston McConville Marcou Maylin Hunter would absolutely smash Melbourne 2012 and many other current sides. Against the top sides I suspect they would struggle but give a good contest.

They had the endurance (that's a lot of what they trained), I think the modern lot would destroy them in bursts, for strength, height etc.

Interesting to see how a modern team would go with zero rotations - they'd have to change things up, dramatically, to adjust.

In a time-machine drag and drop, I suspect any modern side would run through them, but the older good team would (with the same training, techniques etc) still be better.

 

[mediumsizered]

lol it doesn't matter what rules are being used, nothing can make up for 30 year gap in conditioning, tactics and sports science.Anyone thinking otherwise is deluded.

So you are confident the current day players who are interchanged every 5-6 minutes would comfortably run out a game, even when finding themselves needing to spend significantly more time on the ground, particularly if a teammate is injured early in the game, reducing the number of interchange players to one.

Some people underestimate the fitness of players who played in the 1980s, confusing them with the players of the 40s, 50s & 60s, who worked 5 1/2 days a week & only trained for a couple of hours, 2 nights a week. Many players in the '80s were semi-professional & often did extra training sessions during the week to try & gain an edge on their opponents. You would only need to expose the players of the '80s to the modern training methods for a short time before they caught up with their modern day counterparts & many of the players of the '80s would comfortably outplay many of the modern day players due to their better ability to read the play, take contested marks, kick the ball longer & use their body better in contests.

 

[Slattery_20]

Can't believe that every 80s or 40s or 20s player was magically better kick/body positioning/mark etc than everyone from now, either.

Rose tinted glasses firmly on, there.
I suspect the very, very good players from any era would be very, very good in any other era; and similarly, trucks would be trucks.
There's a wider catchment these days, but kids are pushed through before they're ready - IMHO the standard doesn't change that much year to year.

I suspect everyone just inherently believes the era when they got into their club, and the game, was the best ever team in the best ever period.
Clearly can't be true for all.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If Helen D'Amico made her appearance I have the feeling many of those Melbourne boys would be quivering wrecks for the rest of the game.

I'm not sure she'd be looking so great these days...

 

[jd1991]

Carlton have 82 would be taken by surprise at the constant pressure, the amount of run occurring in the game. Players today are endurance freaks and also burst players. In 82 only a couple of players would of run more than 12km in a game, today 80% of teams run that much.

Todays game we regularly have 80 plus effective tackles per side (tackles are measured as if they stopped the ball going to another player with a successful disposal, not a tackle thats laid where the player is still able to get the ball off) versus only 20-30 tackles a side from that era. On top of that you have all the pressure acts. All players run both ways now, back in 82apart from the back 6 not many people constantly and some rarely applied pressure.

Players now overall have better skills. They are also undertaking those skills at a time when pressure has never been higher. They are used to been pressured and effectively execute.

Tactics now and the way teams are drilled, would cause teams of yesteryear to be always a couple of steps behind.

On talent there would be little to no difference.

But the way the game is played now - a current team whether its under the old rules or current would comfortable beat a team from yesteryear. People might say, what about the thuggish behaviour of those 80s teams, I can tell you that player for player the current players would on average be able to better handle themselves than those players of yesteryear - as they train/cross train in boxing, wrestling etc.

 

[Tragic sainter]

So you are confident the current day players who are interchanged every 5-6 minutes would comfortably run out a game, even when finding themselves needing to spend significantly more time on the ground, particularly if a teammate is injured early in the game, reducing the number of interchange players to one.

Some people underestimate the fitness of players who played in the 1980s, confusing them with the players of the 40s, 50s & 60s, who worked 5 1/2 days a week & only trained for a couple of hours, 2 nights a week. Many players in the '80s were semi-professional & often did extra training sessions during the week to try & gain an edge on their opponents. You would only need to expose the players of the '80s to the modern training methods for a short time before they caught up with their modern day counterparts & many of the players of the '80s would comfortably outplay many of the modern day players due to their better ability to read the play, take contested marks, kick the ball longer & use their body better in contests.

So are you saying the players of the 80's were better endurance athletes than melbourne players 2012? :-s

The talent pool in today's game is HEAPS bigger than the talent pool of the 80's. I have no doubt in my mind that a best 22 player in any non expansion side of today's game would've dominated 30 years ago

 

[Slattery_20]

So are you saying the players of the 80's were better endurance athletes than melbourne players 2012? :-s

The talent pool in today's game is HEAPS bigger than the talent pool of the 80's. I have no doubt in my mind that a best 22 player in any non expansion side of today's game would've dominated 30 years ago

IMHO, the (much fewer) genuine midfielders of the 80s/90s would've run much further than anyone does now.
Remember, guys like Barry Mitchell, Bradley, Shaw, Banger Harvey & even Chris McDermott were regularly racking up 30+ touches through the 80s/90s. As far as I know, some of Crawford's GPS results have never been bettered.

What has changed, is now you will have 15 guys expected to be pseudo-midfieldres, and have 15-20 touches. There are a lot more rotations.
But I'd say the '82 midfielders would be just as good endurance athletes (they might be smaller & weaker) as any of the 2012 guys, even if there were less of them - the '82 flankers/talls would be destroyed if it came down to end-to-end running.

 

[Elite Master]

Some mid to late 90's teams would probably have a chance against the bottom few teams from this year.

The mid/late 90's versions of North, Essendon and Brisbane would comfortably beat the lower end teams of today. In fact I'd say they'd beat a lot of teams in and around the top 8 as well.

 

[scottwade]

Tactics now and the way teams are drilled, would cause teams of yesteryear to be always a couple of steps behind.

On talent there would be little to no difference.

But the way the game is played now - a current team whether its under the old rules or current would comfortable beat a team from yesteryear.

There seems to be a tendency to forget the actual individuals from the 1982 Carlton team and the 2012 Melbourne side.
Carlton was coached by David Parkin, the Carlton team of the century coach and an excellent tactician.
Melbourne would be coached by Mark Neeld.
Does no one remember the embarrassing (failed) tactics he used against WCE in rd 2 2012?

Parkin actually devised the tactics in Carlton's flags of that era to suit the players at his disposable; the mosquito fleet. Players who would be equally suited to today's game.

The Carlton team of 1982 also contained 5 members of their team of the century (Ashman, Doull, Fitzpatrick, Hunter & Johnston). Do people really not think that players of that calibre, plus other multi-premiership winning players such as Bosustow, Harmes & Sheldon would not be able to adapt to today's game?

They were top line players, with due respect how many current Melbourne day players would people feel comfortable classing as such?

 

[walhawk]

Based on talent, Carlton would have the best 15 - 20 players on the ground.
With 1982 rules, and Carlton coached by a 2012 coach, they would win.
Nothing beats talent in a big game, as an unfit Stewie Dew showed in the 2008GF, and an injured Goodes in this year's GF.

 

[00Stinger]

Melbourne beat a GWS team made up of 17 players with less than 20 games experience and 3 geriatrics by the grand total of 4 goals.



1982 Carlton would go ok.

And Port lost to GWS and beat you guys, so what is your point?

 

[Falchoon]

And Port lost to GWS and beat you guys, so what is your point?

They'd be a midtable side, much like us, but better than you.

 

[Monkey King]

I must say for the sake of equity, if Melbourne are to have all the benefits of fitness and tactics I think it's only fair the same imbalance exist in umpiring, ie Melbourne play by today's rules and Carlton by the rules in 1982. So Fitzpatrick could run through his opponent, but him not be run through, only two umps can make decisions for the Blues, but the Dees have three, Blues can bump but the Dess can not, so on and so forth. I reckon if this was done, the Blues would romp it home. Far too much class and skill. If forced to play modern they might have a little trouble, but some of the blokes in that Bosustow, Ashman, Hunter, Johnstone and probably the best defender I've seen in Bruce Doull, were all such great players.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Maybe meet halfway and go with the 1997 rulebook.