1982 Premiers vs 2012 Also Rans

[blaze036]

Feel free to share your credentials with us kid.

Only hole being dug here is that which sees you demanding a bunch of spuds would walk over triple Premiership players.

I'm demanding that am i?

You english good no?

 

[Tragic sainter]

Feel free to share your credentials with us kid.

Only hole being dug here is that which sees you demanding a bunch of spuds would walk over triple Premiership players.

So the collingwood side of 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930 would beat melbourne 2012?

 

[krisholio14]

So the collingwood side of 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930 would beat melbourne 2012?

There's a bit of a difference between the 1920's and the 1980's.

That Carlton team would probably not win the flag these days, but they'd be a final 8 team quite easily.

 

[Tragic sainter]

There's a bit of a difference between the 1920's and the 1980's.

That Carlton team would probably not win the flag these days, but they'd be a final 8 team quite easily.

So the saints, essendon, Carlton and Richmond miss the 8 but a team from the early 80's wouldn't? Lol

 

[Monkey King]

So the saints, essendon, Carlton and Richmond miss the 8 but a team from the early 80's wouldn't? Lol

Yeah, probably. Particularly so if they had a modern preseason and were updated on tactics. A guy like Bruce Doull would have been made for today's game. You say "a team from the early 80's" like the time period speaks by virtue of itself, but there would be a number of teams from the 80's that would likely spank those sides.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You would need more then one preseason just to build up body mass.

 

[Tragic sainter]

You would need more then one preseason just to build up body mass.

And no amount of pre season would make them taller.

 

[Shoei]

Yeah, probably. Particularly so if they had a modern preseason and were updated on tactics. A guy like Bruce Doull would have been made for today's game. You say "a team from the early 80's" like the time period speaks by virtue of itself, but there would be a number of teams from the 80's that would likely spank those sides.

You cant give the 1982 team modern tactics and training otherwise you'd be elevating them to that of a modern AFL team and that's not what this hypothetical is about.

And IMO that's what will kill the teams from the 80's and even 90's, the level of tactical awareness in the modern game added to the fitness of the modern players would not be matched by the earlier players no matter how strong or skilful they were.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

And no amount of pre season would make them taller.

Nah I saw I thing on 60 minutes where they stretched this Sheila's legs so she could a model, problem solved.

 

[Monkey King]

You cant give the 1982 team modern tactics and training otherwise you'd be elevating them to that of a modern AFL team and that's not what this hypothetical is about.

Well it's a bit hard to say something like "they wouldn't make the finals" unless you're talking about a seasons worth of games, in which case they would be exposed to modern tactics and training. The discussion seemed to deviate from the OP's construct and that's how I responded.

And IMO that's what will kill the teams from the 80's and even 90's, the level of tactical awareness in the modern game added to the fitness of the modern players would not be matched by the earlier players no matter how strong or skilful they were.

I think you're right in one way, but it's not all just one way on this point IMO, as modern players don't seem to have as good an instinct for the game. The Collingwood vs Geelong GF was a great example that in the end, beyond tactical awareness, it really came down to those players with great game sense and who could get the ball in their hands when it was most needed.

 

[Monkey King]

You would need more then one preseason just to build up body mass.

I think body mass would probably be more of an issue for the Melbourne kids tbh. The Carlton side would be more worried about skin folds and endurance, in which significant gains could be had over one preseason.

 

[rayven]

I sometimes wonder if a modern day cellar dweller would beat a premiership team from a different era.

Would, say Melbourne, beat the 1982 Carlton Premiership team (for example) if both were in their respective playing / training / fitness conditions and levels?

Considering the big gap in the speed and skill in the game between now and then would the modern day dees run 1982 Carlton off their feet? Or would Carlton's raw talent be enough?

There are alot of variables like tactics and playing styles and umpiring standards / interpretations.

Just some off season wondering

What about the 1982 SANFl premiership side? do you think todays Melbourne could beat them, especially if the 82 Carlton side struggled to beat norwood?

 

[blaze036]

I think body mass would probably be more of an issue for the Melbourne kids tbh. The Carlton side would be more worried about skin folds and endurance, in which significant gains could be had over one preseason.

Has someone already quoted the fact the melbourne side was far heavier than the carlton team of the 80s?

They use the gym way more and far better diets for muscle gain

 

[Two Eyes]

What this thread has brought home to me is how much more change AFL has had than other sports...

The AFL introduces more rules changes in 1 year than other sports have in 30...

Someone asked how Lillee would go today. He would do just fine. He'd still be bowling the same length and the same number of overs in a day. Modern wickets and bats would mean he would be not quite as we'll rewarded is all.

AFL has seen so much change and has also changed so much professionally that even a Melb of 2012 would win and win comfortably simply because Carlton 82 would never get to play the game on their own terms.

That is no slur on Carlton '82, they were more talented by far but they wouldn't be competing on an even playing field

 

[El_Scorcho]

It doesn't matter how talented you are when 12 guys who are bigger, stronger and faster than you can swarm you every time you get the ball so you can't get anything approaching a clean disposal away.

IMO Carlton would start okay by virtue of quality inside ballwinners but would be destroyed in the second half after being absolutely run off their feet by the 2012 Melbourne side.

Seriously, people talk about the effects of travelling to Perth when it comes to fatigue and the ability to run out games. Imagine how less fit the Carlton side would be. They'd be on their haunches half way through the first just trying to keep up and would be thoroughly spanked.

If we're talking about them being allowed a preseason they might catch up a bit, but that's not really in the spirit of the thread.

 

[Monkey King]

Has someone already quoted the fact the melbourne side was far heavier than the carlton team of the 80s?

I think the difference between both last game teams is something like 3.63kg p/player. I'm imagine given the height of the Carlton team the BMI would actually be giving them greater body mass relative to height.

 

[Tragic sainter]

I think the difference between both last game teams is something like 3.63kg p/player. I'm imagine given the height of the Carlton team the BMI would actually be giving them greater body mass relative to height.

You have to factor in the skin folds of the Carlton guys which would be far greater.

 

[blaze036]

I think the difference between both last game teams is something like 3.63kg p/player. I'm imagine given the height of the Carlton team the BMI would actually be giving them greater body mass relative to height.

nearly 4kgs is huge.. plus the 80's players would have WAY more fat on them, meaning the current players would probably have on average 4 kgs more muscle than 80's players, plus height speed and endurance.

 

[Monkey King]

You have to factor in the skin folds of the Carlton guys which would be far greater.

Check initial post ...

The Carlton side would be more worried about skin folds and endurance, in which significant gains could be had over one preseason.

 

[Monkey King]

nearly 4kgs is huge.. plus the 80's players would have WAY more fat on them, meaning the current players would probably have on average 4 kgs more muscle than 80's players, plus height speed and endurance.

That's just an assumption which re the midfield anyway, I don't think carries the WAY measure that you're claiming here. Yes, 3.6kg isn't anything to be sneezed at for sure, but you see guys who are 4kg heavier lose contests all the time in the modern game. It's not as simple as the heavier bloke wins. And guys like Trengove and Jones aren't all that heavier than guys they'd be lining up against. Jones is actually lighter than Harmes for instance and probably not as fast either.

However, all this comes from the context of a comment ... that one preseason would not account for the additional muscle mass, to which I replied the Melbourne kids probably would struggle as much for muscle mass; which as I noted with BMI considered, is actually a fair enough comment.

 

[Tragic sainter]

That's just an assumption which re the midfield anyway, I don't think carries the WAY measure that you're claiming here. Yes, 3.6kg isn't anything to be sneezed at for sure, but you see guys who are 4kg heavier lose contests all the time in the modern game. It's not as simple as the heavier bloke wins. And guys like Trengove and Jones aren't all that heavier than guys they'd be lining up against. Jones is actually lighter than Harmes for instance and probably not as fast either.

However, all this comes from the context of a comment ... that one preseason would not account for the additional muscle mass, to which I replied the Melbourne kids probably would struggle as much for muscle mass; which as I noted with BMI considered, is actually a fair enough comment.

BMI has nothing to do with muscle mass. According to your BMI most afl players would be way over weight. It's a simplistic tool for the mum at home to roughly calculate her ideal weight.

 

[blaze036]

BMI has nothing to do with muscle mass. According to your BMI most afl players would be way over weight. It's a simplistic tool for the mum at home to roughly calculate her ideal weight.

Anyone who regularly works makes their BMI wrong

 

[blaze036]

That's just an assumption which re the midfield anyway, I don't think carries the WAY measure that you're claiming here. Yes, 3.6kg isn't anything to be sneezed at for sure, but you see guys who are 4kg heavier lose contests all the time in the modern game. It's not as simple as the heavier bloke wins. And guys like Trengove and Jones aren't all that heavier than guys they'd be lining up against. Jones is actually lighter than Harmes for instance and probably not as fast either.

However, all this comes from the context of a comment ... that one preseason would not account for the additional muscle mass, to which I replied the Melbourne kids probably would struggle as much for muscle mass; which as I noted with BMI considered, is actually a fair enough comment.

You aren't taking into account the fact 80's players had much more fat on them, modern midfielders have hardly any which makes the weight differences even MORE impressive, most modern players would be carrying quiet a few extra kilos of muscle which would be a ridiculous advantage, like geelong playing against GWS. Plus with the HUGE endurance advantage it really would be a slaughter physically.

Plus you can deny the level of skill has noticeably improved over the 30 years, players train more often, more professionally and from an earlier age now and with better coaching/facility.

No "win at all costs" attitude or something like that is going to overcome that, really to suggest the game would be within a 10 goal margin is ridiculous

 

[Monkey King]

BMI has nothing to do with muscle mass. According to your BMI most afl players would be way over weight. It's a simplistic tool for the mum at home to roughly calculate her ideal weight.

This is just not well thought out in the context of my comments. People keep going on about weight as though it equals muscle density and strength. Given the 1982 team weren't a bunch of tubbies, this weight to height measurement does give a reasonable counter to those suggestions. You read too much New Idea I think

 

[Monkey King]

You aren't taking into account the fact 80's players had much more fat on them ...

Okay. Don't really have the time to keep going over the same things. As I just noted, I have considered this in my earlier post and noted how in the context of my initial comment, it doesn't have the relevance you think it does. Sure they would have worse skinfolds, but they weren't exactly tubbies with 3 extra kilos of fat either. Well, not all of them anyway. I'm not going to depart from the context of my comment though to get into a circular argument.