1982 Premiers vs 2012 Also Rans

[Fadge]

Get a life pal -better things to do then count posts to make a point on a blog site in front of the other kiddies.

Carlton 82 were a TRIPLE Premiership outfit - Melbourne have barely won 3 games of football!

Sports science/rotations/fitness/zones and flooding vs skill/mental toughness/winning attitude and culture/mongrel 'do anything' to win approach?

Know which I'm backing.

It took me no longer than three minutes to count the preceding posts from around fifty posts - granted it may take you a little longer. Also, I hope you don't live in Melbourne because it would be ironic if the bloke telling me to get a life was posting comments on Bigfooty and 12.30 am on a Friday night/Saturday morning...

Your comments back up my original post precisely. Are you familiar with the word 'delusion'?

Question: How do you think the Collingwood side of 1927 to 1930 would go against the 2012 Melbourne side?

 

[Fadge]

That's almost irrelevant to your comment though, as it's reasonable to think a high percentage of Blues fans would back their team, especially one as star-studded as the 82' premiership team. Had the club not had a shit fight at the end of 79' this little era may have won four straight flags.

But it's not just a matter of "you could look at it that way", but according to your original comment, centered around those posters selecting the 82' team being the same who rate the Blues chances for next season, it is the best way of looking at it. And as it stands it's half non-Carlton posters who've done that; so it's fair to say your original comment was slightly off-centre and intended more as a jibe than as insightful observation.

This would also be the case if you had 10 of 1000 non-Carlton supporters selecting Carlton and 10 of 12 Carlton supporters selecting Carlton. I thought the logic was a reasonably simple one to follow.

 

[andrew99]

I think we would be generous is saying that ANY pre 90s side would get within 10 goals. My own thoughts are that the margin would be much greater.

A few things to consider:

1) the teams in 1982 were basically in a state competition. The talent pool was therefore much smaller.

2) tactics. we can see that a modern team, with modern players gets ANNIHILATED if they don't have a working and well drilled press & rotation system . Just look at the carnage that St Kilda wrecked on the competition when it first arrived in 2009. A team 5 years ago would struggle vs the press, just forget about a 1982 team used to stationary positioning.

** Another flow on from the rotation system is that taller , stronger players are favored over smaller endurance athletes. many of the stars of yesteryear would struggle with the physicality of their opponents , no matter their mental resolve. A 71kg 5ft 9in player simply has no chance.

3) player conditioning and development has improved . the modern players would be too strong and fit.

My prediction : 100 points + to Melbourne

 

[Monkey King]

This would also be the case if you had 10 of 1000 non-Carlton supporters selecting Carlton and 10 of 12 Carlton supporters selecting Carlton. I thought the logic was a reasonably simple one to follow.

Easy logic to follow sure, but not a logic that supports your comments in any way. You were saying that those people opting for the 1982 team were the same one's rating Carlton's 2012 chances; and yet in actuality only half of those were actually Carlton supporters ... only half. So it means that a smaller percentage of people selected the 1982 side and half of them fitted your criteria. Sorry bud, you've been caught out on this one.

 

[Monkey King]

A few things to consider:

1) the teams in 1982 were basically in a state competition. The talent pool was therefore much smaller.

Your other points were worthy of consideration, but this one far less so. Firstly because to this day Victoria still supplies the overwhelming majority of AFL players, but mostly because the league had a good dose of Australia's top talent by 1982 and these days the talent pool is diluted by having 18 teams, meaning there would be some guys running around every weekend who would have been in the lower leagues back in 1982. There is an argument that talent pool was actually more dense back then.

 

[Fadge]

Easy logic to follow sure, but not a logic that supports your comments in any way. You were saying that those people opting for the 1982 team were the same one's rating Carlton's 2012 chances; and yet in actuality only half of those were actually Carlton supporters ... only half. So it means that a smaller percentage of people selected the 1982 side and half of them fitted your criteria. Sorry bud, you've been caught out on this one.

Caught out? Sounds as though simple mathematics and logic is beyond you.

 

[mediumsizered]

Your other points were worthy of consideration, but this one far less so. Firstly because to this day Victoria still supplies the overwhelming majority of AFL players, but mostly because the league had a good dose of Australia's top talent by 1982 and these days the talent pool is diluted by having 18 teams, meaning there would be some guys running around every weekend who would have been in the lower leagues back in 1982. There is an argument that talent pool was actually more dense back then.

Exactly right. There was a reason why Michael Tuck played 90+ reserves games before cracking a regular gig at Hawthorn & Bruce Doull joined Carlton in 1969, yet couldn't get a regular gig in the seniors until 1972.

What andrew99 doesn't factor in is that there were 12 clubs selecting 20 players each week in 1982 i.e. 240 players, compared to now when 18 clubs are selecting 22 players each week i.e. 396 players. A difference of 156 players. If that doesn't dilute the talent pool, I don't know what does.

The reality is there are some players getting AFL games nowadays, who may well have struggled to get a game at VFL, SANFL & WAFL level back in 1982.

 

[Monkey King]

Caught out? Sounds as though simple mathematics and logic is beyond you.

If that's what makes you feel better about your gaffe, run with it. For me, I know you made no statement about the people who were not selecting the 1982 team, hence they shouldn't contribute to your sample. Your comment was in relation those who did select the 1982 team and on that group you passed comment; yet only half of that group were Carlton supporters. Perhaps you should have worded your attempted troll more carefully mate. Whoops!

 

[Rob]

Get a life pal -better things to do then count posts to make a point on a blog site in front of the other kiddies.

Carlton 82 were a TRIPLE Premiership outfit - Melbourne have barely won 3 games of football!

Sports science/rotations/fitness/zones and flooding vs skill/mental toughness/winning attitude and culture/mongrel 'do anything' to win approach?

Know which I'm backing.

You sound like Crackers Keenan earlier this year trying to claim Port Melbourne would towel up the Gold Coast.

Only to see Port get smashed by Claremont later in the year.

 

[Fadge]

If that's what makes you feel better about your gaffe, run with it. For me, I know you made no statement about the people who were not selecting the 1982 team, hence they shouldn't contribute to your sample. Your comment was in relation those who did select the 1982 team and on that group you passed comment; yet only half of that group were Carlton supporters. Perhaps you should have worded your attempted troll more carefully mate. Whoops!

You really are a simpleton. Did the fact that the majority of respondees are not Carlton supporters really need to be presented in my response, despite the fact that Carlton are only one of 18 teams in the competition, and also that the actual posts were there for all to see? I will not be tailoring my posts to satisfy the lowest common denominator (i.e. You).

I'm also over the attitude that if you don't rate a 1982 Carlton side to beat a 2012 Melbourne side, or if you don't rate the 2011/12/13 Carlton side that you are trolling. No, we're not.

 

[Buzz/Sticks/bryce]

Would D.K Lillee manage to take wickets against the current S.A batting line-up, even though his tactical nous and sport science knowledge is stranded in 1982? I think he'd find a way. We're talking about a decent slice of champions from another era verses modern mediocrity. I don't think it would be a given either way.

 

[The_Wookie]

They did a detailed study of this situation in soccer once.....

Christ thats funny. havent laughed at something on bigfooty for a while. kudos sir

 

[threenewpadlocks]

One point a lot of people haven't made is the contested ball pressure. Especially in the past 5 years, coaches have put more emphasis on winning the contested ball, even more, than say the Brisbane team of 2001-3. Not just that, but things like forward pressure, tackles inside 50, every player on the field contributing to all phases of the game and constant pressure means that the current team would win emphatically.

Nobody here is saying that the Carlton team has less talent than the Melbourne team. But when you consider both physical size and tactics, it's fair to say Melbourne would win by 100+ points.

 

[El_Scorcho]

A modern day AFL side with modern day training and professionalism would wipe the floor with any side from the early 80s.

The difference in size, strength and fitness level would be enough, but the average skill level, even of a bad side of the current era, would be much, much higher, especially under pressure.

It would be a thrashing.

 

[blaze036]

A modern team would destroy any team from the 80's, they would be stronger, faster, fitter, taller and have higher skills... it would be a slaughter. Like an AFL team V a VFL team

 

[El_Scorcho]

Skill level is the big one.

Watching games from 30 years ago, you see so many players miss targets under zero pressure all the time.

These days AFL players are expected to hit targets regularly under constant pressure.

The Melbourne players would be bigger, stronger, faster and would have more endurance, but they would also be far, far better at using the ball, especially under pressure.

Give '82 Carlton one 2012 preseason to learn tactics and build up a bit of a fitness base and they'd be a big chance, but if they were to play with the same style they used in 1982 against the Dees side playing as they do now, it would be a massacre in favour of Melbourne.

 

[blaze036]

Get a life pal -better things to do then count posts to make a point on a blog site in front of the other kiddies.

Carlton 82 were a TRIPLE Premiership outfit - Melbourne have barely won 3 games of football!

Sports science/rotations/fitness/zones and flooding vs skill/mental toughness/winning attitude and culture/mongrel 'do anything' to win approach?

Know which I'm backing.

Your backing the incredibly obviously wrong one.

 

[FootyGeek]

I suppose the real question is; given the advances in sports science, diet, brainpower and hair products, would the 2012 Melbourne team beat the 2013 Melbourne team.

Given the advances I just explained in detail there is no doubt that the 2013 team would beat the clearly technologically inferior 2012 team by 100+ points.

 

[Blue Dawn]

It took me no longer than three minutes to count the preceding posts from around fifty posts - granted it may take you a little longer. Also, I hope you don't live in Melbourne because it would be ironic if the bloke telling me to get a life was posting comments on Bigfooty and 12.30 am on a Friday night/Saturday morning...

Your comments back up my original post precisely. Are you familiar with the word 'delusion'?

Question: How do you think the Collingwood side of 1927 to 1930 would go against the 2012 Melbourne side?

A Collingwood side in bloody knickerbockers would deservedly struggle against most.

How old are kid? Did you actually see the Carlton '82 team play?

Your response, laden as it is with insecurity and capriciousness, merely serves to support the conclusion that the majority of those falling over themselves in this thread to write off anything which preceded them as by default inferior are merely pubescent pimples with stiffys. In other words, kids with NFI.

 

[blaze036]

A Collingwood side in bloody knickerbockers would deservedly struggle against most.

How old are kid? Did you actually see the Carlton '82 team play?

Your response, laden as it is with insecurity and capriciousness, merely serves to support the conclusion that the majority of those falling over themselves in this thread to write off anything which preceded them as by default inferior are merely pubescent pimples with stiffys. In other words, kids with NFI.

You are embarrassing yourself. Clearly have no idea about the advancements in AFL players over the past 30 years. Do you watch much footy?

 

[Monkey King]

I'm also over the attitude that if you don't rate a 1982 Carlton side to beat a 2012 Melbourne side, or if you don't rate the 2011/12/13 Carlton side that you are trolling. No, we're not.

And you call me a simpleton. LOL. You can't even figure out where you got all mixed up exactly. And I didn't even select the 1982 outright if playing under modern rules or without a two-system split, so you've now entered the realm of pure babble and imagination.

Where you were trolling was by making the comment that the those selecting the 1982 were the same as those rating Carlton's 2013 chances, ie trolling Carlton's 2013 chances. It was not needed in this thread and not only that, you got it wrong, as you yourself have shown that only half those taking the 82' team were actually Blues supporters.

Acting superior and getting grumpy at having been called out isn't making you look any better.

 

[Papa G]

I reckon Monkey King would be a reasonable bloke as long as you never talked about Carlton.

 

[Cmarsh]

Exactly right. There was a reason why Michael Tuck played 90+ reserves games before cracking a regular gig at Hawthorn & Bruce Doull joined Carlton in 1969, yet couldn't get a regular gig in the seniors until 1972.

What andrew99 doesn't factor in is that there were 12 clubs selecting 20 players each week in 1982 i.e. 240 players, compared to now when 18 clubs are selecting 22 players each week i.e. 396 players. A difference of 156 players. If that doesn't dilute the talent pool, I don't know what does.

The reality is there are some players getting AFL games nowadays, who may well have struggled to get a game at VFL, SANFL & WAFL level back in 1982.

However Australia's population has grown alot since the 70's and 80's and so has the number of players of Australian Rules, so there is actually more players out there to choose from. So the talent pool really isn't that diluted.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Depends completely on the rule book. If Carlton of 82 played under the 2012 play book it would be an unmitigated disaster, free kick to Melbourne somewhere in the 90's.

Under the rules back in 82 I honestly still see melbourne winning the contests are harder you have tactics used today that would be of no effect like dropping to the ground the moment you felt pressure on your back or attempting to draw high tackles.

However you still have things working in Melbourne's favour 82 had unlimited interchanges and the centre square, combined with the gameplans used to today and fitness levels etc they would certainly be competitive.

Melbourne would be killed in the ruck and when it comes to set shots would be far behind Carlton.

But overall today's well drilled gameplan's and strategies are designed around mitigating the impact of great players, this game would get very rough from there on out as Carlton get frustrated.

This would see Carlton put there bodies on the line and potentially the game turn ugly, from there you can't really measure it easily no Carlton player would pull out a contest out of fear of another player or himself, they would be willing to take more etc.

As long as no dee's players limp of injured then I can't see Carlton winning the pace of which the dee's would move the ball would shock any team of the 80's and slowing it down just allows the the dee's defence to reset. Back then Carlton based its rotations around who looked tired who needed a break.

Rotations today are strategically planned to get the best performance out of the team plenty of players come off with a quite a bit left on the tank precisely so they don't over cook it.

You have zones, floods, presses the rebound game drawing players out of position, floaters these things are foreign to Carlton in 82 and would leave them shell shocked.

Unless Carlton can physical impose themselves make the dee's hurt I would tip this more in the dee's favour with an increase of soft 50 entry's and higher turnovers and making it difficult for Carlton to get any uncontested marks inside the 50 ark.

Final score 10.23.83(mel) 12.4.76(Carl) with Carlton being buggered at the end.

Far better comparing 90's teams like the 96 roo's etc 80's is just to far behind the development of the game and without the bonus of drastically different rules like back in the 70's.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

Really would depend on which rules were used - if the hard stuff was permitted, would expect the older team to be more used to the physical nature of the game. If it was with today's rules and style, the 2012 teams would probably run the past team off the park.

It sort of ties in to those questions of who was the best team of all time in any code. It's almost impossible to say as you can't compare solely one team's achievements in one era to those of another from a different time as their are so many factors and variables to consider.