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

[Jay-Z]

Group 1
West Coast 2006 (17-5, 120.4%) vs West Coast 1994 (16-6, 132.2%)

Group 2
Collingwood 2010 (17-4-1, 141.7%) vs Essendon 2000 (21-1, 159.1%)

Group 3
Hawthorn 1988 (19-3, 142.3%) vs Carlton 1987 (18-4, 138.0%)

Group 4
North.Melb 1999 (17-5, 115.7%) vs Adelaide 1998 (13-9, 123.2%)

Group 5
North.Melb 1996 (16-6, 127.4%) vs Essendon 1993 (13-6-1, 119.1%)

Group 6
Sydney 2005 (15-7, 116.4%) vs Hawthorn 1989 (19-3, 153.2%)

 

[Chewy]

Laughable. Since they got their sh1t together, the great Hawthorn team have a winning proportion of 56%, slightly above average. From 2007-2010, Hawthorn have played 94 games for 55 wins, 38 losses and 1 draw. Collingwood have played 98 games for 64 wins, 32 losses and 2 draws.....a winning 65% of their game.....a good side. A dominant team in the period, Geelong have played 100 games for 83 wins and 17 losses, a winning proportion of 83%.

We both know there's been extenuating circumstances for Hawthorn's slump from 2009-2010. You are doing a Mike Sheahan trick. Why?

Depth must beconsidered when rating a side's premiership chances, HOWEVER, for this competition, we were supposed to be rating teams at full strength. This is actually an important point of difference when rating "teams" from different eras, or the same era. Do we include the depth players and reserves, or do we limit the discussion to the "best 22" or "best 18" ?

Hawthorn were finally able to get their best 18 on the park by June 2010 (for the first time since the 2008 GF) and they managed to peel off a W/L record of 11-3-1 (it would've been 12-3, if not for the interchange blunder vs St Kilda) I'm not sure of Hawthorn's depth in 2011, but I'm confident their "best 22" is okay.

How about we directly compare the head-to-head performances of the Mediocre Hawks with the Great Magpies and Dominant Cats from 2007-2010?

Hmmmm.

And why do the the Bookies rate Hawthorn so highly when you clearly don't?

2011 Premiership odds:

• $3.00 Collingwood
• $5.50 St Kilda
• $7.00 Hawthorn
• $8.00 Geelong
• $9.00 Bulldogs
• $13.00 Fremantle
• $15.00 Carlton
• $21.00 Sydney
• $26.00 Adelaide
• $26.00 Melbourne
• $34.00 North Melb

Hawthorn of 2008 would probably be on a similar level to Collingwood of 1990.

Collingwood's path in 1990 was made smoother because the two best sides of 1989, Geelong and Hawthorn, both had 'off' years. Dunstall fractured his skull, remember. (There I go again with those excuses! ) The Hawks did not pinch the '08 flag due to other teams' misfortune. The best sides - Geelong, St Kilda and Bulldogs - were all there at the business end of the season.

WAAA WAAA WAAAA

Hawthorn had 19 blokes play 20 or more games in 2008.....and you are complaining about a bad run with injuries!!

Not complaining... Just stating the facts. It adds merit to Hawthorn's perfomance in 2008. Everything didn't just "fall their way" like it has for other (luckier) premiership teams.

• Trent Croad broke his wrist and missed 5 or 6 games
• Tim Boyle started the year as our first choice CHF, cracked a vertebrae in Rd 3 and missed the entire season
• Crawford battled knee tendonitis all year, missed 11 games and could hardly kick the ball in many other games
• Stuart Dew had persistent hamstring troubles and missed 10 games
• Brad Sewell busted his shoulder, missed 5 games and took awhile to recapture form
• Luke Hodge did a hamstring, missed 3 games and missed 2 others
• Brent Guerra did a hamstring and missed 4 games
• Chance Bateman did a hamstring and missed 4 games
• Simon Taylor went down with an injry and missed 3 midyear games
• Clinton Young received a hip injury and missed 5 games

Many of these injuries occurred around the same time in the middle of the year and the club struggled as a result. This is another reason why the club was underrated in 2008. Hawthorn started like a bat out of hell, 9-0, people asked "Are they the real deal?". The Hawks lost 4 of their next 8 as injuries took hold. Many people dismissed them as pretenders. But they stabilised over the final 2 months, found some form and won 7 of their last 8 games. And don't forget Buddy Franklin received a serious hand injury after kicking 8 goals in the QF. It affected his handling & marking and he could only kick 1 goal and 2 goals in the PF and GF.

I think it was a bloody good effort for Hawthorn to overcome their various setbacks and win '08 flag like they did.

Does Dan26 take any of this stuff into account when he rates each of the Premiership teams from 1897-2010? Does he ackowledge the hurdles which were overcome or does he simply look at the stats ?

 

[Chewy]

Some clever chap summed it up pretty well in this thread

I will always give more weight to sustained success and dynasties when assessing the relative merit of different teams from different eras. You'd be a fool to do otherwise...

Yep, I stand by those words. Not for a minute would I compare Hawthorn '08 or Collingwood '10 to the great sides who won back-to-back flags

Like Hawthorn '08, the Magpies had a number of lesser lights who crept up on the competition in 2010. (Well done, Micky) But they'll face greater scrutiny in 2011. As will Malthouse's gameplan. It remains to be seen whether they can reproduce the same level of play. St Kilda were completely dominant in 2009, but rival coaches found ways to combat them in 2010.

This is where Dan26 and I differ in opinion

I think the Collingwood "team" has enjoyed a few weeks holiday, but is now getting stuck into their pre-season and attempting to back up their 2010 achievement. Same team, but they've added a couple of new faces.

Collingwood's rivals will be trying even harder to knock them off in 2011. From hunters to hunted. If the Pies can maintain the same level of play, as the reigning champions, then I will dip my lid and acknowledge they are a great side. At the moment, they are merely a very good side.

Dan26 would have you believe that the Collingwood "team" is no more and this is a completely new team in 2011. Bollocks to that! This isn't American college football, with half the team graduating, or leaving for the NFL.

Great teams can back it up.....

Agreed. Tell Dan26.

Tis good that you reject the one season, as if you look at Hawthorn 2008 over a sustained period you will come to the conclusion that they weren't that good.

You'd be a fool to do otherwise...

I never tried to claim the '08 Hawks were one of the greatest sides ever.

You spend half your time trying to tear apart Dan's individual season argument regarding Essendon by using an argument regarding sustained success (it aint even as if they were rubbish either side of 2000 either).

Yet you completely ignore all of those arguments when talking up one 2008 season from Hawthorn.

Hmmmm. I can see why that would confuse you. I tried to pump up Hawthorn '08 because it appeared as though people regarded them as an ordinary team. I never meant to claim they were a "great" side.

I reckon Dan26's defintion of "One season, one team" is bullshit, especially they way he isolates each season and takes each year out of context. It has no basis in reality. I think you need to look at the total picture. You need to understand the history and progression from year to year (for the reasons I've already explained)

Hawthorn '08 was a very good team, but they were not battle-hardened like Geelong. Younger players, less-seasoned, lighter framed bodies, they suffered injuries and they were unable to defend their title. Taken in isolation, using only statistics and comparing the quality of their GF opponent, those '08 Hawks were superior to the '06 Eagles, but if you take the broader view and examine all the facts, then it's safe to say that West Coast were probably the better team.

The biggest test for a football team (any sporting team) is to stay on top once they've achieved success and keep on contending.

Most AFL footballers who don't have a premiership medal are very hungry to get one. To my mind, true greatness is measured by how hungry they are to get a 2nd premiership, then a 3rd, 4th, etc....

Dan26 casually dismisses this with his talk of "eras" and he adopts a nerdy mathematicians take on football. He ignores the degree of difficulty each team faces, the hurdles they overcome, the scrutiny they are under and their ability to withstand ANY challenge (even if it didn't happen to come their way)

These things are subjective, but they are also very real.

Once again, apologies if I sounded like a biased Hawthorn cheerleader, but my intention was to provide balance to argument, to present another POV rather than go with the flow and be a sheep. Most of the footy media have their heads up their arses, yet people allow them to shape their opinions on AFL/VFL history. I don't rate their opinions on matches from the day before, let alone their summary of an entire season, or their lazy recollections and repeated myths from the past

 

[Chewy]

Here's some lazy recollections and repeated myths of my own

Group 1
West Coast 2006 (17-5, 120.4%) vs West Coast 1994 (16-6, 132.2%)
Malthouse has forgotten more about football than Woosha ever learned from him. WA state side from '94 defeats a good side from the modern era of equalisation.

Group 2
Collingwood 2010 (17-4-1, 141.7%) vs Essendon 2000 (21-1, 159.1%)
Didak would be scared to go near the footy with those nasty Bomber boys looking to knock his block off.

Group 3
Hawthorn 1988 (19-3, 142.3%) vs Carlton 1987 (18-4, 138.0%)
They were great battles, but Hawthorn had Carlton's measure from 1986-1988. Langford and Mew were the best defenders in those days. SOS was still a pup. Platten >>> Naley. Debate raged about Brereton vs Kernahan, but the Hawks also had Dunstall...

Group 4
North.Melb 1999 (17-5, 115.7%) vs Adelaide 1998 (13-9, 123.2%)
Sorry North fans, but if it was one or two years earlier, I would've tipped the Kangas. I didn't really rate the top sides in 1999: North were in slow decline, there was power vacuum which Essendon filled, but choked in the Prelim. Adelaide were a lot better than their W/L records indicated from 97-98. Thier best was very good. Like I said before, in Sept 98, they took on the top 3 away from home and won by 27, 68 and 35 pts. Pretttty good...

Group 5
North.Melb 1996 (16-6, 127.4%) vs Essendon 1993 (13-6-1, 119.1%)
North at their 90's peak with Carey, McKernan, Archer, Schwass, Stevens and Martyn all dominant.

Group 6
Sydney 2005 (15-7, 116.4%) vs Hawthorn 1989 (19-3, 153.2%)
Is Barry Hall allowed to push Langford in the back? Does poor Peter Schwab also get let off at the tribunal like Big Bad Baz? Both teams hung on by the skin of their teeth in two of the most exciting GFs we've seen, but Hawthorn had just 13 fit men by the end. Warriors of Glenferrie > Blood Brothers

 

[Sharker18]

WC 94
Ess
Haw
Adel
NM
Haw

 

[gaz15]

Matchday 14 OPEN (all day January 13th)

Group 1
West Coast 2006 (17-5, 120.4%) vs West Coast 1994 (16-6, 132.2%)

Group 2
Collingwood 2010 (17-4-1, 141.7%) vs Essendon 2000 (21-1, 159.1%)

Group 3
Hawthorn 1988 (19-3, 142.3%) vs Carlton 1987 (18-4, 138.0%)

Group 4
North.Melb 1999 (17-5, 115.7%) vs Adelaide 1998 (13-9, 123.2%)

Group 5
North.Melb 1996 (16-6, 127.4%)vs Essendon 1993 (13-6-1, 119.1%)

Group 6
Sydney 2005 (15-7, 116.4%) vs Hawthorn 1989 (19-3, 153.2%)




Select your winners.

West coast 94
Ess 2000
Hawks 88
North 99
North 96
Hawks 89

All pretty clear cut

 

[Groggyk]

Group 1
West Coast 2006 (17-5, 120.4%) vs West Coast 1994 (16-6, 132.2%)

Group 2
Collingwood 2010 (17-4-1, 141.7%) vs Essendon 2000 (21-1, 159.1%)

Group 3
Hawthorn 1988 (19-3, 142.3%) vs Carlton 1987 (18-4, 138.0%)

Group 4
North.Melb 1999 (17-5, 115.7%) vs Adelaide 1998 (13-9, 123.2%)

Group 5
North.Melb 1996 (16-6, 127.4%)vs Essendon 1993 (13-6-1, 119.1%)

Group 6
Sydney 2005 (15-7, 116.4%) vs Hawthorn 1989 (19-3, 153.2%)

 

[Dan26]

Matchday 14 complete
West Coast 1994 defeated West Coast 2006...... 15-2
Essendon 2000 defeated Collingwood 2010........ 17-0
Hawthorn 1988 defeated Carlton 1987.......14-3
Nth.Melb 1999 defeated Adelaide 1998......... 15-2
Nth Melb 1996 defeated Essendon 1993........ 16-1
Hawthorn 1989 defeated Sydney 2005........ 16-1

 

[Dan26]

Matchday 15 open (all day January 14th)

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)



The final ladder and final seedings will be posted around 12:01am on the morning of the 15th January. The knockout stage is nearly here. Thanks to everyone for contributing so far. Let's keep it going.

 

[Lazarus]

Haw
Bris
Coll
Geel
Geel
Carl

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Matchday 15 open (all day January 14th)

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)

 

[Daveo Plonk]

Ess
Bris
Coll
Geel
Geel
Carl

 

[Pj.Rj.Hj]

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008

Group 2
Brisbane 2001

Group 3
Collingwood 1990

Group 4
Geelong 2008

Group 5
West Coast 1991

Group 6
St.Kilda 2009

 

[La Vache]

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)

 

[Jay-Z]

Matchday 15 open (all day January 14th)

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)

 

['51 Bewick]

Matchday 15

Group 1
Essendon 2001

Group 2
Brisbane 2001

Group 3
Collingwood 1990

Group 4
Geelong 2008

Group 5
West Coast 1991

Group 6
Carlton 1995

 

[Rocky_Star_Pro]

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)

 

[beez]

Hawthorn
Brisbane
Collingwood
Geelong
West Coast
Carlton

 

[larrikin]

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)

 

[Stevie80]

Matchday 15 open (all day January 14th)

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)

 

[Sharker18]

Haw
Bri
Coll
Gee
WC
Car

 

[doppleganger]

I think it was a bloody good effort for Hawthorn to overcome their various setbacks and win '08 flag like they did.

Does Dan26 take any of this stuff into account when he rates each of the Premiership teams from 1897-2010? Does he ackowledge the hurdles which were overcome or does he simply look at the stats ?

Not highlighting the entire post as way too long.

You cracked the sads because the majority of people voted for West Coast 2006 over the mighty Hawks of 2008.

Yet using your own reasoning, you would have to also go for West Coast due to sustained success.

 

[doppleganger]

Hmmmm. I can see why that would confuse you. I tried to pump up Hawthorn '08 because it appeared as though people regarded them as an ordinary team. I never meant to claim they were a "great" side.

No premiership team is an ordinary team.......but Hawthorn 08 aint one of the dominant premiership teams, hence when compared to some of the other great premiers in recent times they will come up short.

I reckon Dan26's defintion of "One season, one team" is bullshit, especially they way he isolates each season and takes each year out of context. It has no basis in reality. I think you need to look at the total picture. You need to understand the history and progression from year to year (for the reasons I've already explained)

It is simply an entertaining way of looking at things.....there will never be a correct answer to any of these debates.

Take the Collingwood team from the 1920s, make them professional, give them same training standards as the modern footballer and they would compete with any team.

Hawthorn '08 was a very good team, but they were not battle-hardened like Geelong. Younger players, less-seasoned, lighter framed bodies, they suffered injuries and they were unable to defend their title. Taken in isolation, using only statistics and comparing the quality of their GF opponent, those '08 Hawks were superior to the '06 Eagles, but if you take the broader view and examine all the facts, then it's safe to say that West Coast were probably the better team.

So why did you bother with a massive rant about people picking West Coast over Hawthorn??

 

[butters78]

We both know there's been extenuating circumstances for Hawthorn's slump from 2009-2010. You are doing a Mike Sheahan trick. Why?

what circumstances were they? stop with your bias arguements! every post you make on this site is arguementative! get over your hawthorn crap mate! they got lucky. accept it! if anything the way they played that grand final should count against them. negative tactic bullcrap that it was!!! it worked for 1 season! accept you got lucky and be happy with the win!!! take it and run! but shut the f--k up about being hard done by and having to overcome unimaginable hurdles pfffffft. what a joke

 

[gaz15]

Matchday 15 open (all day January 14th)

Group 1
Hawthorn 2008 (17-5, 131.9%) vs Essendon 2001 (17-5, 134.5%)

Group 2
Brisbane 2001 (17-5, 127.6%) vs Geelong 2010 (17-5, 147.1%)

Group 3
Collingwood 1990 (16-6, 130.2%) vs Essendon 1990 (17-5, 139.2%)

Group 4
Hawthorn 1991 (16-6, 135.9%) vs Geelong 2008 (21-1, 161.8%)

Group 5
Geelong 2009 (18-4, 127.4%) vs West Coast 1991 (19-3, 162.2%)

Group 6
Carlton 1995 (20-2, 137.8%) vs St.Kilda 2009 (20-2, 155.7%)



The final ladder and final seedings will be posted around 12:01am on the morning of the 15th January. The knockout stage is nearly here. Thanks to everyone for contributing so far. Let's keep it going.

Hawks 08
Bris 01
Coll 90
Geel 08
West Coast 91
Carl 95