Lions of 2003 v Bombers of 2000

[BERT]

I'm sorry (bomber fans) but this match you speak of took place.
I believe it was the 2001 GF where BRISBANE BEAT ESSENDON case closed.

ESSENDON 2000 nucleus won only 1 premiership
BRISBANE 2001 nucleus won 3 premierships.

And don't be a smartarse about it. Teams have a lifespan. Sure players come and go but thew nucleus will live for 6-10 years. From '98 - 2008 essendon wont get anywhere near brisbanes nucleus so i would let it go, essendon fans.

Can't seem to recall the Essendon 2000 side playing the Brisbane 2003 side in 2001.

 

[MickZu]

Interesting to note that alot of bomber supporters are making excuses for their GF loss against the lions. Players out of form, injuries and players missing.

Well "NEWS FLASH"...................So did the lions when they played the pies in 2003 gf and guess what? Lions won.

A super team that can overcome mounting obstacles to win a gf is daylight better than a super team that loses, makes excuses and still claims to be better !!

Game, set and F*%#@!* match.

 

[BulldogMike]

If they were to be matched up who would get Caracella? Can only judge on performance where i would say the Lions.

 

[Longy413]

Interesting to note that alot of bomber supporters are making excuses for their GF loss against the lions. Players out of form, injuries and players missing.

It wasn't an excuse......no Essendon supporter used it as an excuse for our loss.

It was only used as an indication that Essendon were closer than a lot thought. Four goals up just on half time and over run by a fitter and superior team in the second half.

 

[chooke]

That arguement works if Essendon were just beating sides. But we weren't. We destroyed everyone. Average winning margain of 8 goals.

125 point victory in a final was just clinical.

Just shows how poor the opposition was in that year. Brisbane of 2001-03 and Port of 2004 would have easily accounted for Essendon of 2000.

 

[topdon]

Just shows how poor the opposition was in that year. Brisbane of 2001-03 and Port of 2004 would have easily accounted for Essendon of 2000.

Port?? LMFAO!!

 

[Longy413]

Just shows how poor the opposition was in that year. Brisbane of 2001-03 and Port of 2004 would have easily accounted for Essendon of 2000.

How does that arguement work?

I've heard the Brisbane team was better because they had substained success and Essendon didn't even though they supposedly had the same team in 2001, 2002 etc.

Yet in 2000 Essendon had no opposition, yet using the arguement above then Brisbane and Port Adelaide should have been the majority of the same side in 2000 that they were in the couple of years following it.

The fact is, regardless of Essendon's opposition...we blew them off the park. The fact that we smashed teams, rather than just getting across the line highlights that we weren't just in the right place at the right time...we would have beaten anyone.

 

[Pessimistic]

essendon 2000 would flog any of the brissie sides.

essendon had brissie on toast in 2001 until injuries kicked in. had they not had so many injuries they'd have gone back to back i'm about 98% certain.

Thank god for injuries is all i can say.

Essendon 2001 were VERY lucky to beat hawthorn who have proved to be very suspect.

That is my point. essendon teams of that era were very good in the H&A but faltered in the finals. Brisbane only just got started in the finals.

And a lot of essendon fans were very relieved when they beat melbourne in 2000 - shades of 2000 I know.

Even though Melbourne were shocking it took a long time to put them away - two points for every goal at one stage.

 

[XXX KINGS]

...but Carlton 95 would beat them all!!

We were absolutely indestructible under pressure that year.

cheers!

 

[SydneyBomber]

essendon 2000 would flog any of the brissie sides.

essendon had brissie on toast in 2001 until injuries kicked in. had they not had so many injuries they'd have gone back to back i'm about 98% certain.

Thank god for injuries is all i can say.

jeez I bet that hurt - but thank you.

 

[SydneyBomber]

That is my point. essendon teams of that era were very good in the H&A but faltered in the finals.

Jeez Pess you must've missed the 2000 QF where we made 'the team of the 90's' (cough) look like the Douta stars 3rds.

 

[chooke]

How does that arguement work?

I've heard the Brisbane team was better because they had substained success and Essendon didn't even though they supposedly had the same team in 2001, 2002 etc.

Yet in 2000 Essendon had no opposition, yet using the arguement above then Brisbane and Port Adelaide should have been the majority of the same side in 2000 that they were in the couple of years following it.

The fact is, regardless of Essendon's opposition...we blew them off the park. The fact that we smashed teams, rather than just getting across the line highlights that we weren't just in the right place at the right time...we would have beaten anyone.

Point taken, but if they truly were a super outfit rather than "being in the right place at the right time" then surely they would have one a few more GF's after 2000 - at least 2001 and 2002? So no, while he jury is still out on Port, you cant compare Essendon of 2000 with the Lion dynasty of 2001-03. The 2000 Essendon team suffers from the one hit wonder syndrome by comparison unfortunately.

 

[MarkT]

Deej, Brisbane had injuries in 2003 and won easily. Say what you like the opposition that day but that opposition accounted for every other side in the AFL when it mattered. The bottom line is Essendon didn't win in 1999 or 2001 whereas Brisbane won 3 and still finished second in number 4. Without wanting to Port's effort down, Brisbane went into the 2004 with a few main weapons underpowered. They haven't finished yet either, regardless of how many people want to write them off.

 

[cjwalkley]

Using the Caracella-meter the Lions would win the match of the 2000 Essendon side v the 2003 Lions side...

(Caracella was in Essendon's top 10 players in 2000, would have been somewhere between 18-22 in the Lions side)

 

[Longy413]

Using the Caracella-meter the Lions would win the match of the 2000 Essendon side v the 2003 Lions side...

(Caracella was in Essendon's top 10 players in 2000, would have been somewhere between 18-22 in the Lions side)

Perhaps, but Blake Caracella was playing much better football in 2000 than he was in 2003.

Hird, Mercuri, Misiti, Lloyd, Lucas, Wellman, Fletcher, Long were our best players in 2000. The rest of the way down it was very very even. Any player from 9-25 could have made way for any other. Blokes like Denham, Prior, Robran, McVeigh, Jacobs, Bolton missed the GF side......whilst not big names they all had claims to be there.

Brisbane probably very much the same.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

...but Carlton 95 would beat them all!!

We were absolutely indestructible under pressure that year.

Is that why they kicked just 3.6 against st.kilda?

 

[johnnyhoward]

The Bombers were just so intimidating in 2000, even more than the Lions were at there best. But the Lions could just blow you away in no-time.

Essendon were 'in the zone' that whole year, nobody could match it with them even the Kangas who lead by 69 points at one point got reeled in. The Bombers forward line was so potent, and dare i say...they were 'harder at it' than any side i've seen. They both had awesome forward & back lines, the Lions had it over them slightly in the midfield, but the Bombers more than made up for that with how they played (so determined & tough) as a team that year.
the Lions were better in 2003 than any other year, typified by the GF.
I couldn't see any side in history actually beating the Bombers in that GF of 2000 even the Lions at there best in 2003.
Sorry Lions, but.....Bombers by 10 points.

That Kangaroos game was in 2001, and I think that game, the fact that they got so far behind showed that they weren't as mentally strong as the previous year.

Essendon in 2000 were used to having it easy, which is why they choked against the Dogs. The Dogs were a top 6 side that year, but thats not saying much when Melbourne where the 3rd best and got done by 80 points. The gulf that year between Essendon and the rest of the teams was big, and when faced with a challenge like the BUlldogs, Essendon couldnt handle it. Although you could say it was stage fright from being undefeated...But the point is, noone really challenged the BOmbers and were intmidated. The Dons games were clinical in how they won matches, and they never experienced pressure.

 

[iameviljez]

Is that why they kicked just 3.6 against st.kilda?

Carlton stuffed up for two games that year - Sydney, StKilda, quite early in the piece. From then on in they were just about indestructable, except for perhaps the game when we went within 3 points of them

 

[BERT]

That Kangaroos game was in 2001, and I think that game, the fact that they got so far behind showed that they weren't as mentally strong as the previous year.

Essendon in 2000 were used to having it easy, which is why they choked against the Dogs. The Dogs were a top 6 side that year, but thats not saying much when Melbourne where the 3rd best and got done by 80 points. The gulf that year between Essendon and the rest of the teams was big, and when faced with a challenge like the BUlldogs, Essendon couldnt handle it. Although you could say it was stage fright from being undefeated...But the point is, noone really challenged the BOmbers and were intmidated. The Dons games were clinical in how they won matches, and they never experienced pressure.

Theres no pressure in finals.

Where were there easy games?

A night game against Carlton had 90,000 there. Biggest H&A game for the year. Scores were close at 3/4 time and yet the Bombers won but there was no pressure in that game.

How can you say the only loss they had for the year proves that they couldn't handle pressure?

 

[BERT]

Sorry posted twice.

 

[Dan26]

Pretty silly quetion, really.

One team went 24-1 with a percentage of 160% and won three finals by 120, 45 and 60 points, against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th teams.

The other went 17-8-1 (that's NINE games they failed to win), lost a final and had a percentage in the 120's, and wasn't tested against the minor-premiers in the finals (becase port choked.) Their toughest opponent was Collingwood who defeated them in a final and Colingwood wasn't even that good!

It's stupid to even compare the two sides.

 

[Diamond_Joe]

Essendon in 2000 were used to having it easy, which is why they choked against the Dogs

Mate we just went 20 straight and we choked going for 21 straight?? That game in round 21 only did 2 things, give that club the dogs a bit of a chance to be part of history.........and just delayed the inevitable. I'll take my one flag (even though ive seen 4 in my lifetime) compared to the pies...what 1 in 60 years now? Do I even have to mention stkilda, richmond, bulldogs and geelong supporters?

And to answer the threads question, not only would I take the Essendon 2000 team over brisbane (what ever year) but Id also take carlton's in 95, like the dons of 2000, awesome teams.

 

[jimmy35]

Mate we just went 20 straight and we choked going for 21 straight?? That game in round 21 only did 2 things, give that club the dogs a bit of a chance to be part of history.........and just delayed the inevitable. I'll take my one flag (even though ive seen 4 in my lifetime) compared to the pies...what 1 in 60 years now? Do I even have to mention stkilda, richmond, bulldogs and geelong supporters?

And to answer the threads question, not only would I take the Essendon 2000 team over brisbane (what ever year) but Id also take carlton's in 95, like the dons of 2000, awesome teams.

For mine you have got it right there.

'Awesome team.'

I think the Dons that year were just about the best TEAM I have seen.
Comparing player for player and the fact Brisbane won 3 compared to Essendons 1 is largely irrelevant IMO because the question of which was the best TEAM.

Essendon seemed unbeatable that year and I have never felt that about any team in the years I have been following football.

PS Thank God for the Bullies miracle that year or I would never have lived that season down from a mate!!

 

[Deej]

Deej, Brisbane had injuries in 2003 and won easily. Say what you like the opposition that day but that opposition accounted for every other side in the AFL when it mattered. The bottom line is Essendon didn't win in 1999 or 2001 whereas Brisbane won 3 and still finished second in number 4. Without wanting to Port's effort down, Brisbane went into the 2004 with a few main weapons underpowered. They haven't finished yet either, regardless of how many people want to write them off.

Let me give you an anolgy from horse racing (don't know if you follow that sport or not). Sunline was a fantastic horse, and Northerly was also a fantastic horse, Sunline was more durable and won more money because year in year out she just kept producing. A freak, true champion, consistently produced. But despite having many quirks Northerly beat her every time they clashed, at suitable distances to both horses, when both were injury free, fit and flying. So which horse is the best?

Brissy might have won more flags, but if they both happened to clash injury-free at their best i know which team i'd have my money on.

 

[Deej]

Is that why they kicked just 3.6 against st.kilda?

just didn't turn up to play that day, or the week after.

What do they say, 95% of footy is above the shoulders?

No idea why but those weeks the whole carlton side looked disinterested. That's why i wrote 'under pressure' in my sentence, when we were involved in games where we came to play and the opposition threw everything at us, we were so good that we were just about unbeatable. Carlton's best from 95 vs Essendon's from 2000 would be an awesome match....but Carlton would kill em of course