BigFooty summer comp - to find the best team, according to BigFooty posters, of the modern era.

[Lunchlady Doris]

Nice, it's official, the greatest team of the modern era. Thank everyone, working it into my sig right now.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Nice, it's official, the greatest team of the modern era. Thank everyone, working it into my sig right now.

So you can take on other peoples opinions....

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Nice, it's official, the greatest team of the modern era. Thank everyone, working it into my sig right now.

....well the greatest non-Hawthorn team anyway.

 

[Partridge]

I'm not really giving extra kudos to Geelong 2008, either. As I've stated a few times, whilst they only lost twice, there was also a degree of "flat track bully" about them. There has never been a team with a bigger difference between their performances versus the poorer teams and their performances versus the finalists.

Really? I'm not sure about this. Against all finalists their record was 10 wins, 2 losses - with an average winning margin of 39.6 points.

Against the bottom 8 teams, as you would expect, it's higher. 13 wins, no losses - and an average winning margin of 61.38 points.

Surely any top team is going to average higher winning margins against bottom sides than top? If they were downhill skiers how come out of 6 matches against the top 4 (Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St.Kilda) their record was 5-1? How come they beat St.Kilda in the finals by more than Hawthorn did? I wouldn't have picked this side, purely because to rank as a great side you have to win a flag, but losing a game in September doesn't demean every win you've had during the season. It's totally irrelevant.

 

[RogerC]

If it is done again next summer, if I have the energy, there are some possible improvements:

1.) Perhaps not being allowed to vote for matches that involve your club. To be honest I don't think affected the voting much because the teams who made it towards the end were all great teams in their own right, but it stops the possibility of a group vote if a motivated poster decides to "rally the troops" on one of the club boards.

2.) Incorporating the great teams from the past (i.e not of the modern era.) There would have to be a system (probably by win-loss) which dictates who makes it, and who doesn't. There could be a Collingwood 1929 vs Melbourne 1956 match, for instance.

3.) Keep your editorialising to a bare minimum, especially at the pointy end of the competition.

 

[Groggyk]

It's not a matter of placing importance on a few losses during the season. It's more about the overall quality of performance over the season. I'm one of the few that rate Adelaide of 1998 as a better team than North Melbourne that same season. I just thought they were a better team. Win-loss record can't explain that, but it's something a footy follower who follows the sport very cloesly (as I would say I do) might think.

Good work on an interesting thread in the boring off season mate.

Just on this comment though I do find it a bit confusing, given that Adelaide finished several places below North in '98, when your stated criteria is for "overall quality of performance over the season". North should have smashed them in the Grand Final. 21 scoring shots to 7 til half time with the majority of those behinds under little pressure would suggest the Crows were being dominated. We simply ****ed up and to Adelaides credit, they made us pay.

 

[Dan26]

Good work on an interesting thread in the boring off season mate.

Just on this comment though I do find it a bit confusing, given that Adelaide finished several places below North in '98.

Well, that's true, but if you just look at the 1998 season as one 44 hour match instead of breaking it down in 22 "two hour" matches" Adelaide was probably more impressive:

North Melbourne percentage 1998....... 117.4%

Adelaide 1998.......... 123.2%

Adelaide has a far better defence and I felt, at their best they were more skillful and explosive.

North should have smashed them in the Grand Final.

Why? The final margin was 35 points. A smashing to Adelaide, in the end. The Crows didn't "fall over the line." The won easily, running away.

scoring shots to 7 til half time with the majority of those behinds under little pressure would suggest the Crows were being dominated.

well, 23 scoring shots to 9, Adelaide's way in the second half, would suggest the Kangaroos were being dominated. Why is Adelaide's "14 more scoring shots in a half" not talked about as much as North's "14 more scoring shots in a half"

I mean Adelaides "14 more scoring shots" came in the half where the game was up for grabs. At the end of the day, the final margin was emphatic. I've never known any group of fans, (except Kanga fans) who think they should have won a match that was lost by 35 points. I can understand if you lost by a goal, or something, but it was SIX goals.

There is a feeling that Adelaide wasn't the best team in 1997 or 1998. Now I don't always think the premiership winning team is always the best team, but I actually think that Adelaide were the best team in both 1997 and 1998. They were certainly the most skillful, and the combined that with the best defence in the AFL.

Their excellent percenatge is a good indicator that their 13-9 win-loss record both years was lower than they deserved.