The worst team to win a premiership

[doppleganger]

And carringbush was desperately unlucky once again.

Really unlucky to have:

A big unfit useless forward with no jam tart;
a drunken lout with no jam tart;
a shiela smacker with no jam tart;
a has been who disappeared up his own orifice years ago;
a shambolic organization run by a big mouthed corporate boner;
a talentless midfield slower than the collingwood cheer squad; and
a lumbering backline looser than paris hilton's undies.

Without all that bad luck champ you would have given it a shake

???

had none of that in 1990

beat the swanettes easily in 06 tho, with their imposter brownlow medalist given a footballing lesson by ryan lonie of all people!!

 

[Footylover1]

???

had none of that in 1990

beat the swanettes easily in 06 tho, with their imposter brownlow medalist given a footballing lesson by ryan lonie of all people!!

You call a 2 goal win easy?

 

[Footylover1]

And where did the Magpies finish up in 06? That's right, got thrashed by an injury ravaged Bulldogs in week 1 of the finals!

 

[cammo78]

Can't help but say Adelaide 97, 98.
I hate St Kilda and hated the Dogs back then but Libba's kick was a goal in 97 prelim.
In 98 I hated the Roos more then you lot cos they bored me stupid but it makes me sick to know that Adelaide has as many premierships for the 90's as WC and North and more than Essendon and Carlton knowing that all 4 teams were sooooo much better than the crows in the 90's win/loss ratio.

Damn straight it was a goal...robbed.

 

[doppleganger]

You call a 2 goal win easy?

do u actually watch or remember games of football?

we were up by 4 goals at half time

swans kicked a couple of early goals in the third but then we turned it on again to get out to 5 goal lead a 3quarter time

also kicked the first few of the final quarter, were up by 40 odd points half way thru the last quarter and then coasted and the swans kicked the last 4 goals to look respectable

at no stage after quarter time did the pies look like losing

 

[Footylover1]

do u actually watch or remember games of football?

we were up by 4 goals at half time

swans kicked a couple of early goals in the third but then we turned it on again to get out to 5 goal lead a 3quarter time

also kicked the first few of the final quarter, were up by 40 odd points half way thru the last quarter and then coasted and the swans kicked the last 4 goals to look respectable

at no stage after quarter time did the pies look like losing

You have failed to recognise my point about where did the Magpies end up in 06 compared to the Swans? Collingwood ended up losing to an injury ravaged Bulldogs! Poor show. But like I said you're the reason why a lot of people hate Collingwood so much.

 

[plugger47]

???

had none of that in 1990

beat the swanettes easily in 06 tho, with their imposter brownlow medalist given a footballing lesson by ryan lonie of all people!!

1.No the team of 1990 was probably worse.
2.The maggots of 06 proved that at least once a year every dog of a team has its day.
3. The Bloods kicked the game away with atrocious kicking (bad football) with two goals from 14 shots by half time. We should have been four goals ahead by half-time.
4. I know numeracy is as challenging as literacy but the Bloods had 27 scoring shots to 25. If thats an easy win hate to see a close one.
3. Lonie shaded the great man on the night. The both kicked two goals and Lonie had about five more possessions.
4. If you are going to insult a great footballer at least be accurate - he must be a double imposter. He's won two brownlows with more to possibly to come

 

[Dan26]

Historically, the Fitzroy team of 1916 was the worst. They finished last in a 4-team comp, and then won the finals series to take the flag.

If you look at more recent times, the two Adelaide sides of 1997 and 1998 are underrated. People look at them as "not that good" but really, their 13-9 win-loss record in both seasons did not reflect their ability. They were better than that. They had the best defnece in the AFL in both seasons, and more pertinantly, the best percentage both years. They weren't one of the best flag teams ever, but they certainly weren't the worst.

In terms of the weakest in modern times, two stand out to me:

2005 Sydney : It's always easy to justify that the evential flag winner was the best team of the year, but realistically Sydeny was very luck 18 months ago. Aside from not being a particularly dominant team, anyway, and having a lucky injury run, they won two of their three finals by less than a goal, and did not display the dominant explosive charachteristics that premiership sides usually have.

Kangaroos 1999 : It's an unusual situation when a flag team finishes the H&A with a 17-5 record, and yet they are not a particularly dominant team (comapred to what the club was in 1996, 1997, and 1998.) The win-loss record certainly did not reflect their dominance. The Kangaroos had the weakest defence in the top-8 and unbelievably the weakest defence of the top TEN.

The thing about the Kangas, was that they were at their best in 1996 and then gradully got a little bit weaker each year. In 1997, Carey did his shoulder and missed half the season (they finished 12-10) but if he was fit they would have been your typical 15-16 win contender like in 1996. Then in 1998, they were still good, but not quite as good as 1996 - just not as dominant. And then in 1999 they were STILL good, but, once again, not quite as good as 1998. Maybe just that 5% worse. And in 2000, they once again finished in the top 4 but they were that lttle bit worse again. They were just hanging on in 2000.

So I felt from 1996 to 2000 they gradually were getting a little bit worse each year, whislt still remaining a contender. Their Grand Final performance against Carlton where the Blues were a 50-50 also ran, and both teams had 29 scoring shots each was not an exeptional peformance by the 'Roos, and I must admit it was frustraing as an Essendon fan watching them knowing we would have been strong, strong favourites had we played them. But that's besides the point.

I lean towards Sydney in 2005 as being the weakest (of modern times), with the Kangaroos of 1999 being marginally better than them. VERY glad both of them beat their respective opponents though.

Other teams that weren't "that" good (by premiership standards) were Essendon of 1993 and West Coast of 2006.

 

[saggers]

Historically, the Fitzroy team of 1916 was the worst. They finished last in a 4-team comp, and then won the finals series to take the flag.

If you look at more recent times, the two Adelaide sides of 1997 and 1998 are underrated. People look at them as "not that good" but really, their 13-9 win-loss record in both seasons did not reflect their ability. They were better than that. They had the best defnece in the AFL in both seasons, and more pertinantly, the best percentage both years. They weren't one of the best flag teams ever, but they certainly weren't the worst.

In terms of the weakest in modern times, two stand out to me:

2005 Sydney : It's always easy to justify that the evential flag winner was the best team of the year, but realistically Sydeny was very luck 18 months ago. Aside from not being a particularly dominant team, anyway, and having a lucky injury run, they won two of their three finals by less than a goal, and did not display the dominant explosive charachteristics that premiership sides usually have.

Kangaroos 1999 : It's an unusual situation when a flag team finishes the H&A with a 17-5 record, and yet they are not a particularly dominant team (comapred to what the club was in 1996, 1997, and 1998.) The win-loss record certainly did not reflect their dominance. The Kangaroos had the weakest defence in the top-8 and unbelievably the weakest defence of the top TEN.

The thing about the Kangas, was that they were at their best in 1996 and then gradully got a little bit weaker each year. In 1997, Carey did his shoulder and missed half the season (they finished 12-10) but if he was fit they would have been your typical 15-16 win contender like in 1996. Then in 1998, they were still good, but not quite as good as 1996 - just not as dominant. And then in 1999 they were STILL good, but, once again, not quite as good as 1998. Maybe just that 5% worse. And in 2000, they once again finished in the top 4 but they were that lttle bit worse again. They were just hanging on in 2000.

So I felt from 1996 to 2000 they gradually were getting a little bit worse each year, whislt still remaining a contender. Their Grand Final performance against Carlton where the Blues were a 50-50 also ran, and both teams had 29 scoring shots each was not an exeptional peformance by the 'Roos, and I must admit it was frustraing as an Essendon fan watching them knowing we would have been strong, strong favourites had we played them. But that's besides the point.

I lean towards Sydney in 2005 as being the weakest (of modern times), with the Kangaroos of 1999 being marginally better than them. VERY glad both of them beat their respective opponents though.

Other teams that weren't "that" good (by premiership standards) were Essendon of 1993 and West Coast of 2006.

Yes, the roos were very ordinary in winning 19 of their last 21 in 1999. FFS!

 

[Coin_Toss]

3. Lonie shaded the great man on the night. The both kicked two goals and Lonie had about five more possessions.

He didn't have the same impact, as he usually does, on that night. Lonie kept him relatively quiet for his standards and he got over 20 possessions while kicking two goals.

Adam Goodes is not "the great man". He's a very good footballer, and that's all she wrote. He's got plenty of years up his sleeve which helps.

 

[hilly]

If you look at more recent times, the two Adelaide sides of 1997 and 1998 are underrated. People look at them as "not that good" but really, their 13-9 win-loss record in both seasons did not reflect their ability. They were better than that.

Agreed.

Kangaroos 1999 : ......The win-loss record certainly did not reflect their dominance. The Kangaroos had the weakest defence in the top-8 and unbelievably the weakest defence of the top TEN.

Agree re: dominance. Winning 19 of their last 21 games paints a much more accurate picture. The percentage did not reflect their ability.

I must admit it was frustraing as an Essendon fan watching them knowing we would have been strong, strong favourites had we played them. But that's besides the point.

 

[Footylover1]

Historically, the Fitzroy team of 1916 was the worst. They finished last in a 4-team comp, and then won the finals series to take the flag.

If you look at more recent times, the two Adelaide sides of 1997 and 1998 are underrated. People look at them as "not that good" but really, their 13-9 win-loss record in both seasons did not reflect their ability. They were better than that. They had the best defnece in the AFL in both seasons, and more pertinantly, the best percentage both years. They weren't one of the best flag teams ever, but they certainly weren't the worst.

In terms of the weakest in modern times, two stand out to me:

2005 Sydney : It's always easy to justify that the evential flag winner was the best team of the year, but realistically Sydeny was very luck 18 months ago. Aside from not being a particularly dominant team, anyway, and having a lucky injury run, they won two of their three finals by less than a goal, and did not display the dominant explosive charachteristics that premiership sides usually have.

Kangaroos 1999 : It's an unusual situation when a flag team finishes the H&A with a 17-5 record, and yet they are not a particularly dominant team (comapred to what the club was in 1996, 1997, and 1998.) The win-loss record certainly did not reflect their dominance. The Kangaroos had the weakest defence in the top-8 and unbelievably the weakest defence of the top TEN.

The thing about the Kangas, was that they were at their best in 1996 and then gradully got a little bit weaker each year. In 1997, Carey did his shoulder and missed half the season (they finished 12-10) but if he was fit they would have been your typical 15-16 win contender like in 1996. Then in 1998, they were still good, but not quite as good as 1996 - just not as dominant. And then in 1999 they were STILL good, but, once again, not quite as good as 1998. Maybe just that 5% worse. And in 2000, they once again finished in the top 4 but they were that lttle bit worse again. They were just hanging on in 2000.

So I felt from 1996 to 2000 they gradually were getting a little bit worse each year, whislt still remaining a contender. Their Grand Final performance against Carlton where the Blues were a 50-50 also ran, and both teams had 29 scoring shots each was not an exeptional peformance by the 'Roos, and I must admit it was frustraing as an Essendon fan watching them knowing we would have been strong, strong favourites had we played them. But that's besides the point.

I lean towards Sydney in 2005 as being the weakest (of modern times), with the Kangaroos of 1999 being marginally better than them. VERY glad both of them beat their respective opponents though.

Other teams that weren't "that" good (by premiership standards) were Essendon of 1993 and West Coast of 2006.

If you want to critisize Sydney for winning close finals then you have to critisize West Coast 2006. To say they we're dominate is a joke. First off, they we're lucky to finish on top. If the Crows didn't have so many injuries they would have finished on top for sure. And secondly, the Eagles won their preliminary final by only 10 points after trailling for most of the match and the Grand Final by 1 point. That is hardly domination isn't it? If you want to critisize Sydney 05 you have to critisize West Coast 06 as well because both teams won close finals.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

1998 is the most dominant North team I've seen, we just choked in the big one.

 

[magilla]

If you want to critisize Sydney for winning close finals then you have to critisize West Coast 2006. To say they we're dominate is a joke. First off, they we're lucky to finish on top. If the Crows didn't have so many injuries they would have finished on top for sure. And secondly, the Eagles won their preliminary final by only 10 points after trailling for most of the match and the Grand Final by 1 point. That is hardly domination isn't it? If you want to critisize Sydney 05 you have to critisize West Coast 06 as well because both teams won close finals.

touchy when you're team is criticised are'nt you.
he did say west coast of 06 were'nt that good by premiership standards if you read the whole post.

and btw, collingwood of 1990 finished 2nd after h/a season, won all it's finals by ten goals or so except for the drawn one. so hardly the worst team to win a flag.

 

[jarmanagic]

I was about 5 metres directly behind the goal umpire. It was clearly a goal-but the fact is we shouldnt have let you get to the position where one goal mattered

I had a perfect view of that kick, and I thought it went high over the goalpost. Legend has grown it was a goal, but I couldnt tell. You take your chances in a game of footy, and the Bulldogs didn't that day

What people forget about the Crows of 97, 98 was that in 97 they won 4 finals (noone else has done that) beating sides 1, 2, 3 and 5 along the way

In 98 they won 3 finals away from home. The first final vs Melbourne was always an irrelevant game given the finals rules at the time. Our effort to beat North (who were a superb side at the height of their powers) from 4 goals down, and win going away was a great one. Anyone else won 3 away finals in a row? Any Victorian team won 3 away finals in their existence?

Back to 97,98 for a moment. The very best part about those games was Libba didn't get a flag. I always admired him until he punched Caven in the jaw in a pack in the final minutes of the 98 Prelim Final, Bulldogs down by 10 goals, game over. The cheapest act I have seen for a while, Cavo could have easily broken a jaw pre softened by Lockett and missed the GF.

Libba... flags 0, serves him right

 

[Footylover1]

touchy when you're team is criticised are'nt you.
he did say west coast of 06 were'nt that good by premiership standards if you read the whole post.

and btw, collingwood of 1990 finished 2nd after h/a season, won all it's finals by ten goals or so except for the drawn one. so hardly the worst team to win a flag.

I know Collingwood we're pretty dominate but it was unbearable living back then when they won

 

[zebbitty]

Sydney in 05

 

[Redlegs14]

finished 4th and got creamed by Melbourne in the first final.

Wrong year FFS.

'98 we finished 5th and got creamed by Melbourne.

 

[natlovestheswans]

sydney 2005. i may sound biased due to us losing the match and although they have a few talented players the way they play just isnt appealing to me. no offence to swan supporters just the gameplay roos uses even though it does get you places is ruining the freeflowing 1 on 1 footy. the worse thing is a lot of other teams are following lead.

None taken, seeing as we beat you in that game.

 

[hoogs]

In the last ten years...

Sydney 05.

Does that make the Eagles just as bad, with the games being so close?

 

[Footylover1]

In the last ten years...

Sydney 05.

Does that make the Eagles just as bad, with the games being so close?

Yes it does! They're both great teams.

 

[Dan26]

Yes, the roos were very ordinary in winning 19 of their last 21 in 1999. FFS!

Anyone can be selective with statstics from "portions" of the season.

The reality is that they had a percentage of 115% and had the worst defence of the top 10 teams on the ladder.

Were they a very good team? Yes.

Were they as good as most of the other recent premiership teams? Of course not. As I said, North got a littel worse each year from 1996 onwards until they eventually dropped out of the 8 in 2001. In 2000, they were jsut hanging on. In 1999, they were good, but not as good as 1998, or 1997 (if Carey hadn't been injured) and of course they were miles behind their 1996 outfit, who I rate VERY highly.

The best way to know how good a team is is to watch them play, not quote "portions" of the season in statistical form, lol.

 

[Dan26]

If you want to critisize Sydney for winning close finals.

I'm not critical of Sydney at all. They won the flag. The fact they did it with a team of lesser ability than "normal" flag sides, deserves the upmost PRAISE, not criticism. Same with North in '99. For North to win 20 of 25 with the side they had in '99 is nothing short of unbelievable.

then you have to critisize West Coast 2006. To say they we're dominate is a joke.

In my post I did rate West Coast of 2006 and Essendon of 1993 as other recent flag sides to be "less than average" (by premiership standards of course.) Did you miss that bit?

First off, they we're lucky to finish on top. If the Crows didn't have so many injuries they would have finished on top for sure. And secondly, the Eagles won their preliminary final by only 10 points after trailling for most of the match and the Grand Final by 1 point. That is hardly domination isn't it? If you want to critisize Sydney 05 you have to critisize West Coast 06 as well because both teams won close finals.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Crows were easily the best side of 2006 before they were r*ped by injuries. They were heading into "Essendon 2000" territory for a while there (I think they had a percentage of 170% at one point) before they were struck down. In fact, the Crows were so dominant in 2006, that there was actually a huge gap bewteen them and the next best side (West Coast)

The irony of course is that in head to head match-ups, West Coast have the wood on Adelaide. Just like West Coast had the wood on Brisbane when Brisbane were winning premierships. It doesn't make West Coast a better side than the Lions. It's how you go against the whole league, not one opponent, that determines how good you are.

Adelaide were miles better than anyone else in 2006. It's really an injustice that they didn't win the flag and were stuffed by injuries. Oh well, I don't care - I like West Coast better than Adelaide anyway, and I think most neutrals do.

 

[Footylover1]

I don't know why people underate Sydney's talent for. I think we are just as talented as the Eagles. Maybe it's just because our fans don't say as much as the Eagles fans I don't know but we do have a lot of talent otherwise we wouldn't have won the flag.

But I agree with you about Adelaide though they we're the dominant team. But I like the Crows more than the Eagles though, I cannot stand the Eagles for obvious reasons

 

[Captain Sensible]

I had a perfect view of that kick, and I thought it went high over the goalpost. Legend has grown it was a goal, but I couldnt tell. You take your chances in a game of footy, and the Bulldogs didn't that day

As I say I was five metres directly directly behind the umpire and I have no doubt at all that it was a goal. I was close enough to the action to hear Modra's knee pop when he did it.



But we shouildnt have let you guys get to that position.