Essendon 2000 has to be the greatest Team of all Time?

[Foxx]

Well the 24-1 season ranks the greatest win/loss record in history. So I'd say yes it was the greatest season.

 

[The Dougster]

From memory Hird was playing injured in 2001 GF (a quick google says he tore his groin in the Prelim), which definitely wasn't a help. People have largely forgotten just how good he was.

2003 he came back from that serious face injury and finished 3 votes off the Brownlow medal from 6 (5 to Buckley) less games.

Bloke could seriously play.

I couldn’t stand him because of the colours he wore but he was a superstar.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Well the 24-1 season ranks the greatest win/loss record in history. So I'd say yes it was the greatest season.

isn't even just about the win/loss.

Name another team that averaged anywhere near 51 points as a winning margin for an entire season.....that's almost a 9-goal margin every single game rofl. Essendon just about annihilated everyone they vs'd that year.

 

[Defabs]

Eagles 2007 were shithouse due to poor handling of their club both off the field and on it. Weak mindset. No discipline.

Lost home games to average Brisbane and Saints Teams. Blew a 37 point lead away to Essendon then blew a top 4 spot in the final home and away game of the year against The Dons after they almost let a 44 point lead slip at the last change. Were up by over 50 points in that game. Port absolutely blew them out of the water by 91 points when the final score should have read more like 190. You guys did hand them their first loss of the year and blitzed them and indeed Geelong were a good side. They had Judd on about 10 percent in The Port game playing at FF and Cousins went off injured blowing a 4 goal lead in the 3rd. A fully fit and firing West Coast in a different world where Judd wasn't injured and Cousins had his drug habit under control they could have won that Premiership. But they were anything but that year. We beat them missing Judd, Cousins and Kerr, in extra time so it shows what they were capable of.

2007 was the making of Hawthorn and us ( Collingwood ) although the Pies showed glimpses in 2006. We saw the future. You just pipped us by 5 points in The Prelim and we finished 6th with a 13-9 record.

Now all of this aside, You guys were great and in absolutely out of this world form after those early struggles. To be fair, one of the best sides I've seen. The form was just on another level. You also played such football in 1992 without the end product. But 2007 Geelong had that steely resolve and championship mindset.

Bombers still the best for me as they beat everyone by The Flemington Straight but Geelong 2007 certainly one of the best I've seen. 2011 also an insanely good team.

Very good analysis. Pies were solid against good opposition but played some insipid games against a few cellar dwellers that season. The loss to Melb on QB when they only had 1 win, loss to bottom of ladder Richmond and the 93pt loss to Brisbane at the G spring to mind.

Collingwood owned Sydney during that era so they were never going to lose that EF. The win against WCE was summed up well by the above poster. I also recall a bad tactical move at the end of the third qtr by bringing Glass off and allowing Rocca 3 late goals cost them dearly.
Geelong was the other team Collingwood generally played well against. Pies probably have the best record against cats of any team going back the last 20 years. Pies beat them by 100 points the year before and lost a close one at the G midway in 2007. I was not surprised the game was that close but in the end the cats deserved the win; no different to many other top teams who just get over the line in the PF.

 

[Foxx]

isn't even just about the win/loss.

Name another team that averaged anywhere near 51 points as a winning margin for an entire season.....that's almost a 9-goal margin every single game rofl. Essendon just about annihilated everyone they vs'd that year.

The loss against the Bulldogs was a vital part of us winning the flag.
We had a solid backline, but forward of centre was where our strength was, and the high scoring was testament to that.

The Dogs flooded in that game, and we were smothered of run.
Collingwood used that blueprint for the following game - the last round. Which we only won by a couple of goals from memory.

We had time to rectify that chink in our armour before finals, and before a side potentially did it to us, when it was too late for us to counter.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yes.

The best team ever.

There of course, has been better 'eras' (ie. different teams at a club over multiple seasons such as Hawthorn, Brisbane etc.) - but surely that 2000 is the best ever?

They were very almost literally unbeatable. And romped in in the finals when it mattered too. They just demolished Melbourne in the GF.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Yes.

The best team ever.

There of course, has been better 'eras' (ie. different teams at a club over multiple seasons such as Hawthorn, Brisbane etc.) - but surely that 2000 is the best ever?

They were very almost literally unbeatable. And romped in in the finals when it mattered too. They just demolished Melbourne in the GF.

yep pretty much this

Essendon 2000 was on another level entirely, but it could not be sustained over multiple seasons. the like of Hawks, Brisbane & Geelong managed to be far more consistent over long periods of time which id take any day!

 

[QuietB]

The answer is no.

Carlton won it in 1995 but were well and truely at the end.
Melbourne were shit.
Kangaroos won it in 96 and 99 but were at the end.
Geelong were shit.
Brisbane were young and would go on to beat Essendon the following year before becoming the next dominant team.
Bulldogs shit.
Hawthorn shit

North was the dominant teams of the late 90's, and Brisbane would be the next dominant team. Essendon won a premiership in the gap between them when the comp was weak - a percentage of 159.1 is proof the comp was weak. And on top of that Essendon played Melbourne, North, Geelong and Brisbane only once.

Sure they won all their finals by a cricket score but it was a crap year. Deal with it.

This best ever single season because they only lost one game is nonsense.

 

[Fadge]

The answer is no.

Carlton won it in 1995 but were well and truely at the end.
Melbourne were s**t.
Kangaroos won it in 96 and 99 but were at the end.
Geelong were s**t.
Brisbane were young and would go on to beat Essendon the following year before becoming the next dominant team.
Bulldogs s**t.
Hawthorn s**t

North was the dominant teams of the late 90's, and Brisbane would be the next dominant team. Essendon won a premiership in the gap between them when the comp was weak - a percentage of 159.1 is proof the comp was weak. And on top of that Essendon played Melbourne, North, Geelong and Brisbane only once.

Sure they won all their finals by a cricket score but it was a crap year. Deal with it.

This best ever single season because they only lost one game is nonsense.

View attachment 1904534

Everyone else was shite that year because Essendon gapped them all, and made them look shite.

You had a team that had played on the previous 7 Preliminary Finals, winning 2 flags in the previous 4 seasons.

You had a team that was about to embark on a dynasty, generally regarded (according to the recent BigFooty poll) as the strongest team we have seen since the turn of the century.

We had a team that won back to back flags (and we've been told how good a team you need to be to do that by all and sundry over the past two years) - not even make the finals.

Essendon 2000 - the best single season team I have ever seen. Without a shadow of a doubt.

Injuries cruelled them at the pointy end the following season, and the salary cap got them thereafter. But it doesn't impact one's perception of how devastatingly good they were in 2000.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The answer is no.

Carlton won it in 1995 but were well and truely at the end.
Melbourne were s**t.
Kangaroos won it in 96 and 99 but were at the end.
Geelong were s**t.
Brisbane were young and would go on to beat Essendon the following year before becoming the next dominant team.
Bulldogs s**t.
Hawthorn s**t

North was the dominant teams of the late 90's, and Brisbane would be the next dominant team. Essendon won a premiership in the gap between them when the comp was weak - a percentage of 159.1 is proof the comp was weak. And on top of that Essendon played Melbourne, North, Geelong and Brisbane only once.

Sure they won all their finals by a cricket score but it was a crap year. Deal with it.

This best ever single season because they only lost one game is nonsense.

View attachment 1904534

Their AVG winning margin for the entire year was 9 goals guy. 51 points as an avg winning margin is completely absurd.

They didn't just blow teams away in finals. They did it all year.

Teams looked shit in 2000 because Essendon made them look shit.

yet again no one is talking about anything other than a single season. You are going on about periods of time is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[QuietB]

Their AVG winning margin for the entire year was 9 goals guy.

They didn't just blow teams away in finals. They did it all year.

Teams looked s**t in 2000 because Essendon made them look s**t.

Which is my point - all the teams were shit.

Don't get me wrong, that Essendon team was very good. But who were the best 5 players? Hird, Lloyd, Fletcher, throw a blanket over the rest.

Just because they only lost once does not make them the greatest team ever.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Which is my point - all the teams were s**t.

Don't get me wrong, that Essendon team was very good. But who were the best 5 players? Hird, Lloyd, Fletcher, throw a blanket over the rest.

Just because they only lost once does not make them the greatest team ever.

It isn't about them only losing once. Their AVG winning margin FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR was ****ing 9 goals dude lol. name another team that has even come close to this.

They were shit because they were made to look shit, talent in the AFL didn't just disappear for an entire year because it's an convenient excuse that works for you. Your measuring stick is stupid.

it's no surprise to anyone that its largely hawks supporters who are having the hardest time swallowing this. You'd probably argue the sky isn't blue just because an Essendon supporter said it was.

 

[Mr Meow]

The answer is no.

Carlton won it in 1995 but were well and truely at the end.
Melbourne were s**t.
Kangaroos won it in 96 and 99 but were at the end.
Geelong were s**t.
Brisbane were young and would go on to beat Essendon the following year before becoming the next dominant team.
Bulldogs s**t.
Hawthorn s**t

North was the dominant teams of the late 90's, and Brisbane would be the next dominant team. Essendon won a premiership in the gap between them when the comp was weak - a percentage of 159.1 is proof the comp was weak. And on top of that Essendon played Melbourne, North, Geelong and Brisbane only once.

Sure they won all their finals by a cricket score but it was a crap year. Deal with it.

This best ever single season because they only lost one game is nonsense.

View attachment 1904534

I have to admit that Geelong side was one of the worst few of the past 35 years and they somehow finished 5th (albeit with a % of less than 100).

Brisbane took the next step a year later and Port (2001) then Collingwood (2002) burst onto the scene. Besides Port being horrendous in finals, I'd call that a good group of contenders (2001-2003) a decent step up on the 2000 crew. I know people throw shade on that Pies side but I'd take them over anyone but Bombers in 2000 and pretty comfortably.

North and Carlton were decent enough but not near the level of their premiership sides.

So I agree it was a weaker field. Essendon were SO dominant that it is one of the best ever seasons by default though.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Which is my point - all the teams were s**t.

Don't get me wrong, that Essendon team was very good. But who were the best 5 players? Hird, Lloyd, Fletcher, throw a blanket over the rest.

Just because they only lost once does not make them the greatest team ever.

I don't think matters, in the context of this discussion.

There is literally no way to determine categorically who the best team or player from different times was.

It's all opinion, gut feel with a healthy dose of bias thrown in.

We will never know who would beat who. And even if we did, there are too many variables in terms of rule changes, money, modern science and also technology that means even if we could magically transport back in time and play these teams off against each other - you'd never get an even playing field.


So really, comparing a team's performance against the opposition of their time is the only way to come close to answering this question.

Essendon were so much better than everyone else that year that is borderline unbelievable to comprehend.

Aside from a one off freak game, that they only lost by a kick or whatever, no one even came close to threatening them.

They won the GF in a canter.


No other team has ever dominated the competition like that.


Was the comp at a weak point in 2000? Maybe. But even that is hard to assess. Did they seemingly suck because they were all scrambling trying to work out how to beat Essendon? Did getting flogged by Essendon hurt teams' confidence?

It's impossible to say.

The only thing we know for a fact, is that Essendon team of 2000 dominated the comp more than any other team in history has done.

 

[Mr Meow]

I don't think matters, in the context of this discussion.

There is literally no way to determine categorically who the best team or player from different times was.

It's all opinion, gut feel with a healthy dose of bias thrown in.

We will never know who would beat who. And even if we did, there are too many variables in terms of rule changes, money, modern science and also technology that means even if we could magically transport back in time and play these teams off against each other - you'd never get an even playing field.


So really, comparing a team's performance against the opposition of their time is the only way to come close to answering this question.

Essendon were so much better than everyone else that year that is borderline unbelievable to comprehend.

Aside from a one off freak game, that they only lost by a kick or whatever, no one even came close to threatening them.

They won the GF in a canter.


No other team has ever dominated the competition like that.


Was the comp at a weak point in 2000? Maybe. But even that is hard to assess. Did they seemingly suck because they were all scrambling trying to work out how to beat Essendon? Did getting flogged by Essendon hurt teams' confidence?

It's impossible to say.

The only thing we know for a fact, is that Essendon team of 2000 dominated the comp more than any other team in history has done.

That's why it's best to just call it the most dominant/comprehensive/elite season rather than the best side (even on a one year basis). There is room for nuance and context in the latter category and yes that means subjectivity and disagreements. Subjectivity and disagreements are the heartbeat of BigFooty.

Which is why I wouldn't automatically call Geelong's 2007 grand final performance as the best grand final performance ever, or the best team to ever play a grand final.

 

[Nuggets73]

No.
They were over the cap, as Ricky Nixon has publicly stated via their domain-name scam for Lloyd and Hird. Any team that cheats does not deserve to be lauded as the best of anything.

Correct if I'm wrong, didn't the ATO ping Essendon for their 93 season also? I believe they were over the cap that season too.

 

[North park]

That's why it's best to just call it the most dominant/comprehensive/elite season rather than the best side (even on a one year basis). There is room for nuance and context in the latter category and yes that means subjectivity and disagreements. Subjectivity and disagreements are the heartbeat of BigFooty.

Which is why I wouldn't automatically call Geelong's 2007 grand final performance as the best grand final performance ever, or the best team to ever play a grand final.

Statistically, Essendon's 2000 season is the most dominant single year by a team.

Essendon finished with a 21-1 record and a percentage of 159.1 - the only blemish being the narrow loss to Western Bulldogs in Round 21. The Bombers were top of the ladder after every round and their percentage never fell below 155.6.

Essendon then completed the season with 3 comprehensive wins in the finals - by 125, 45 and 60 points to win the premiership.

We have to go back many years to find two years that are comparable.

In 1929, Collingwood finished on top with a 18-0 record and a percentage of 171.7. The Magpies then lost their semi-final to Richmond by over 10 goals, before reversing this loss in the Grand Final by 29 points and claiming their third consecutive premiership.

In 1950, Essendon finished on top with a 17-1 record and a percentage of 162.2 - its only loss being to North Melbourne by 15 points in Round 6. Essendon were then undefeated for the rest of the season, beating North in the second semi final and Grand Final to claim back-to-back premierships.

It is also worth questioning this statement about Essendon in 2000:

"Aside from a one off freak game, that they only lost by a kick or whatever, no one even came close to threatening them."

In Round 9, Essendon beat Melbourne by 13 points (its equal lowest winning margin for the year) while the Bombers trailed Adelaide at three quarter time in Round 10 and Sydney at three quarter time in Round 14. In Round 20, Essendon led Carlton by only 2 points at three quarter time and led Collingwood by only 1 point at three quarter time in Round 22.

While Essendon were good enough to win all of these games in the end fairly comfortably, they didn't dominate every team in every game.

I am also of the view that Essendon's 2000 season was the most dominant by a team, rather than saying they were the best team ever.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Which is my point - all the teams were s**t.

Don't get me wrong, that Essendon team was very good. But who were the best 5 players? Hird, Lloyd, Fletcher, throw a blanket over the rest.

Just because they only lost once does not make them the greatest team ever.

No way. They were stacked with talent allover the field. You don't know footy that well with statements like that.

 

[PowerfulPies2023]

Statistically, Essendon's 2000 season is the most dominant single year by a team.

Essendon finished with a 21-1 record and a percentage of 159.1 - the only blemish being the narrow loss to Western Bulldogs in Round 21. The Bombers were top of the ladder after every round and their percentage never fell below 155.6.

Essendon then completed the season with 3 comprehensive wins in the finals - by 125, 45 and 60 points to win the premiership.

We have to go back many years to find two years that are comparable.

In 1929, Collingwood finished on top with a 18-0 record and a percentage of 171.7. The Magpies then lost their semi-final to Richmond by over 10 goals, before reversing this loss in the Grand Final by 29 points and claiming their third consecutive premiership.

In 1950, Essendon finished on top with a 17-1 record and a percentage of 162.2 - its only loss being to North Melbourne by 15 points in Round 6. Essendon were then undefeated for the rest of the season, beating North in the second semi final and Grand Final to claim back-to-back premierships.

It is also worth questioning this statement about Essendon in 2000:

"Aside from a one off freak game, that they only lost by a kick or whatever, no one even came close to threatening them."

In Round 9, Essendon beat Melbourne by 13 points (its equal lowest winning margin for the year) while the Bombers trailed Adelaide at three quarter time in Round 10 and Sydney at three quarter time in Round 14. In Round 20, Essendon led Carlton by only 2 points at three quarter time and led Collingwood by only 1 point at three quarter time in Round 22.

While Essendon were good enough to win all of these games in the end fairly comfortably, they didn't dominate every team in every game.

I am also of the view that Essendon's 2000 season was the most dominant by a team, rather than saying they were the best team ever.

''
In Round 9, Essendon beat Melbourne by 13 points (its equal lowest winning margin for the year) while the Bombers trailed Adelaide at three quarter time in Round 10 and Sydney at three quarter time in Round 14. In Round 20, Essendon led Carlton by only 2 points at three quarter time and led Collingwood by only 1 point at three quarter time in Round 22.

While Essendon were good enough to win all of these games in the end fairly comfortably, they didn't dominate every team in every game ''



I'll answer the above

You're asking for a miracle if they're going to dominate every single team in every single period of every single game. You're clutching at straws.

Trailed Adelaide by 2 points at 3qtr time? Yes and they won that game by 8 goals.

Carlton were a good team that year, they won that game too by 26 points. Blues finished 2nd on the ladder going 16-6 which teams top the ladder with in other seasons. Some less than that.

Beat us by 19 points.

Ridiculous claims.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's why it's best to just call it the most dominant/comprehensive/elite season rather than the best side (even on a one year basis). There is room for nuance and context in the latter category and yes that means subjectivity and disagreements. Subjectivity and disagreements are the heartbeat of BigFooty.

Which is why I wouldn't automatically call Geelong's 2007 grand final performance as the best grand final performance ever, or the best team to ever play a grand final.

Fair point.

I do think however, it's a bit easier to be subjective when it comes to a GF. There are other factors which can legitimately be put forward to support a case about a team or player's performance.

Things like the season and finals record of the team they beat, the PF and PA of the team they beat throughout the season, the individual performances of opposition players from the team they beat, specific things that impacted the result on the day (such as injuries, poor conversion, umpires, etc. etc.).

The margin is of course one factor, but there are many others that you can point to also to build a case.


Over the course of an entire season though, ultimately the measure of how good a team is is based on how many games they win, how many finals they win, and if they win the GF. Adding to that is how easily they beat their opposition.

 

[North park]

''
In Round 9, Essendon beat Melbourne by 13 points (its equal lowest winning margin for the year) while the Bombers trailed Adelaide at three quarter time in Round 10 and Sydney at three quarter time in Round 14. In Round 20, Essendon led Carlton by only 2 points at three quarter time and led Collingwood by only 1 point at three quarter time in Round 22.

While Essendon were good enough to win all of these games in the end fairly comfortably, they didn't dominate every team in every game ''



I'll answer the above

You're asking for a miracle if they're going to dominate every single team in every single period of every single game. You're clutching at straws.

Trailed Adelaide by 2 points at 3qtr time? Yes and they won that game by 8 goals.

Carlton were a good team that year, they won that game too by 26 points. Blues finished 2nd on the ladder going 16-6 which teams top the ladder with in other seasons. Some less than that.

Beat us by 19 points.

Ridiculous claims.

My comment was in response to the opinion that:

"Essendon were so much better than everyone else that year that is borderline unbelievable to comprehend.

Aside from a one off freak game, that they only lost by a kick or whatever, no one even came close to threatening them."

While Essendon had the measure of every other team (other than the loss to the Bulldogs), they did have to work in the last quarter in some games - they weren't all over by three quarter time.

I think we all agree that Essendon in 2000 dominated the comp more than any other team in history. My memory from that year is that Essendon were so fired up after the 1999 Prelim Final loss, you never thought they would lose a game.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Statistically, Essendon's 2000 season is the most dominant single year by a team.

Essendon finished with a 21-1 record and a percentage of 159.1 - the only blemish being the narrow loss to Western Bulldogs in Round 21. The Bombers were top of the ladder after every round and their percentage never fell below 155.6.

Essendon then completed the season with 3 comprehensive wins in the finals - by 125, 45 and 60 points to win the premiership.

We have to go back many years to find two years that are comparable.

In 1929, Collingwood finished on top with a 18-0 record and a percentage of 171.7. The Magpies then lost their semi-final to Richmond by over 10 goals, before reversing this loss in the Grand Final by 29 points and claiming their third consecutive premiership.

In 1950, Essendon finished on top with a 17-1 record and a percentage of 162.2 - its only loss being to North Melbourne by 15 points in Round 6. Essendon were then undefeated for the rest of the season, beating North in the second semi final and Grand Final to claim back-to-back premierships.

It is also worth questioning this statement about Essendon in 2000:

"Aside from a one off freak game, that they only lost by a kick or whatever, no one even came close to threatening them."

In Round 9, Essendon beat Melbourne by 13 points (its equal lowest winning margin for the year) while the Bombers trailed Adelaide at three quarter time in Round 10 and Sydney at three quarter time in Round 14. In Round 20, Essendon led Carlton by only 2 points at three quarter time and led Collingwood by only 1 point at three quarter time in Round 22.

While Essendon were good enough to win all of these games in the end fairly comfortably, they didn't dominate every team in every game.

I am also of the view that Essendon's 2000 season was the most dominant by a team, rather than saying they were the best team ever.

On that basis being the best team ever will never be crowned then. It will always be a rolling thing.

Teams are limited by the technology & science of their day.

I'd be pretty confident that North Melbourne 2023 would completely towel up 1929 Collingwood for example. 100 years of science between them.

The best team should be defined as how dominant they were in a specific time period. And that is undoubtably Essendon 2000 if we are looking at a single season.

When another team does what they did to the same group of teams, in the same time period, they can take the mantle of Essendon.

You can split hairs all you want but the fact of the matter is they had an avg winning margin of 9 goals for the entire year. Some games were closer yes, but the fact a team can manage a 9 goal avg over an entire year is just utterly absurdly good.

 

[Mofra]

Correct if I'm wrong, didn't the ATO ping Essendon for their 93 season also? I believe they were over the cap that season too.

Bingo.

7 biggest salary cap scandals in sport

When major sporting franchises tried to beat the system and failed.

www.ftbl.com.au

A league and ATO investigation uncovered that the Essendon Bombers had breached the salary cap between 1991-1996. They were fined a total of $638,250: $250,000 in back tax and penalties, $112,000 for draft tampering and $276,250 for breaching the salary cap. They were made to forfeit their first-third round picks in the National Draft and were excluded from the 1997 rookie and pre-season drafts. They are the only AFL team judged to have breached the salary cap in a premiership year (1993).

 

[PhatBoy]

It wasn’t just the wins and margins, I was still only 16 but it just had the look of boys against men pretty much every week that they played. Teams were intimidated by them, even if they weren’t a bash and crash type of team from yesteryear they were still pretty physically imposing with hard nuts around the field and most teams looked beaten before they started.

They were a truly fantastic side and teams that did try and front up with any sort of toughness were found out pretty quickly because they couldn’t match them elsewhere with skill or pace etc

Brisbane fortunately had both and managed to do it

 

[greatwhiteshark]

We can't even no for sure if the side who wins the flag is the best side in the comp anymore. The variables are huge.

Who did you play twice? Where did you play them? What were the ladder positions of those sides? What advantage over other contenders did you or did you not get by playing them twice.

How can you say a side is the greatest ever when such variables are in play.

Great effort for the year by the 2000 bombers. Greatest sides ever can only be ranked in a competition that is totally equal.