A little discussion in another thread got me thinking, which teams least deserved to win the premiership in the 90's?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Worst Premiers of the 90's
- Thread starter daddy_4_eyes
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Hawthorn in 1991. Too old. Too slow.
TOO GOOD!
The Hitman
TOO GOOD!
The Hitman
Norf 99....
Essendon and Lions were better
Essendon and Lions were better
North MElbourne's Premiership in '99 was a steal.
I took Adelaide 98 - I think North had a better team than they did, but lost nonetheless.
A lot will argue collingwood 90, but essendon and Collingwood were easily the 2 best teams that year, and the pies flogged them twice in the finals so fair enough.
A lot will argue collingwood 90, but essendon and Collingwood were easily the 2 best teams that year, and the pies flogged them twice in the finals so fair enough.
coll `90 would not beat one other premiership winning team of that decade. They totally deserved `90, we were an absolute jibbering mess that day and put up as much fight as the Italian army.
Ohh yes thats right...
North beat Carlton, who beat Essendon..
They also beat Lions aswell?? didnt they belt them in the prelim?
Theres no such thing as an undeserved flag, its just an excuse for all the supporters of the teams that couldnt handle the pressure of september
- Banned
- #8
Actually we quite easily beat West Coast in 1992 and it was over there. The 1992 West Coast won the premiership by default..
This thread is'nt about undeserving flags it's about the least deserving. The Teams that didn't back up there premiership win with a good list/H/A season/ Finals.
Yianni
Norm Smith Medallist
You have to clarify the question.
Is it the least deserving IN THAT SEASON, or is it least deserving ACROSS THE WHOLE DECADE (As in, if we played all the premiers from 90-99 against each other, this team would be worst)
Is it the least deserving IN THAT SEASON, or is it least deserving ACROSS THE WHOLE DECADE (As in, if we played all the premiers from 90-99 against each other, this team would be worst)
- Jul 3, 2001
- 22,488
- 9,423
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Heat, Victory, Man Utd, Redskins
Collingwood of 1990 would make any of the Premier sides of the 90s look like jibbering mess'. Tough as nails.
The exception being Hawthorn of 91 (or any other year from their previous 5 years for that matter). Only side capable of outclassing our 90 team IMO.
There is no such thing as a least deserving flag winner.
The first 22 rounds are for gaining the highest position possible on the ladder.
The next four weeks are about who plays best and even if you finished 8th with 11 wins all you need to do is win 4 finals and you are the best team of the year.
Why would you call that least deserving? Whoever plays the best in september and wins all their games is the best performed side that year. If you lose finals you dont deserve to win a flag and if you win them all you deserve the flag.
I have no problems comparing flag winning sides year to year such as "Would WCE of 94 beat Hawks of 91?" thats something you can discuss till the cows come home and have interesting debate on.
But NEVER call a premiership winning side 'least' deserving.
How could you call Collingwood the least deserving team to win a flag if they had of pulled it off this year? It would mean over the course of 26 weeks they played better than every other team and therefore deserved the flag.
Anyone who disagrees, go and talk to the players that played in your so called least deserving team and ask them what they think. I am sure you will get a hell of an argument and possibly a broken nose if you pick the wrong bloke to accuse of being in the least deserving flag winning side of the 90's. They all trained for as long and as hard as every other side, played the full 22 rounds and 4 finals and won the game that matters.
All flag winners are the most deserving team of that year. It's not their fault that the opposition wasnt of a high standard that year, it's the other clubs fault for not recruiting/training/preparing/managing as well as they did.
Stupid thread
The first 22 rounds are for gaining the highest position possible on the ladder.
The next four weeks are about who plays best and even if you finished 8th with 11 wins all you need to do is win 4 finals and you are the best team of the year.
Why would you call that least deserving? Whoever plays the best in september and wins all their games is the best performed side that year. If you lose finals you dont deserve to win a flag and if you win them all you deserve the flag.
I have no problems comparing flag winning sides year to year such as "Would WCE of 94 beat Hawks of 91?" thats something you can discuss till the cows come home and have interesting debate on.
But NEVER call a premiership winning side 'least' deserving.
How could you call Collingwood the least deserving team to win a flag if they had of pulled it off this year? It would mean over the course of 26 weeks they played better than every other team and therefore deserved the flag.
Anyone who disagrees, go and talk to the players that played in your so called least deserving team and ask them what they think. I am sure you will get a hell of an argument and possibly a broken nose if you pick the wrong bloke to accuse of being in the least deserving flag winning side of the 90's. They all trained for as long and as hard as every other side, played the full 22 rounds and 4 finals and won the game that matters.
All flag winners are the most deserving team of that year. It's not their fault that the opposition wasnt of a high standard that year, it's the other clubs fault for not recruiting/training/preparing/managing as well as they did.
Stupid thread
- Thread starter
- #13
Yet you feel you have to stick your nose in it.
- Thread starter
- #14
Out of those ten teams listed, which was the most fortunate team to win the flag. Which team was the sh.ttest when they won.
Example, Nth 1999, should not have won the flag, but a stuff up by Essendon gifted them the flag. Basically, what Stegs said.
Not trying to pick on Collingwood but they were the best of a pretty poor bunch that year.
They had a great centreman/half forward in Daics at FF, a unskilled thug in Kelly at CHB, a monster in the ruck in Monkhorst a player in the BP in Gayfer who was not allowed to kick the ball Their captain couldnt kick over a jam tin and so it goes on.
On the plus side they champions in Brown and Millane and a great coach.
Every other premiership side in that decade IMO would pull their pants down and most likely off, oh and beat them in a game of footy as well.
They had a great centreman/half forward in Daics at FF, a unskilled thug in Kelly at CHB, a monster in the ruck in Monkhorst a player in the BP in Gayfer who was not allowed to kick the ball Their captain couldnt kick over a jam tin and so it goes on.
On the plus side they champions in Brown and Millane and a great coach.
Every other premiership side in that decade IMO would pull their pants down and most likely off, oh and beat them in a game of footy as well.
- Mar 19, 2002
- 7,867
- 275
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- The West Coast Eagles
****WIT!!!! That year we put together a good finals series and a good h/a season!! We thorougly deserved to win in 1992 and 1994!
Adelaide proved in 1997 and 1998 that the home and away season is no more than a means to get into the finals.
It's a shame the Adelaide haters have to have their votes split between two options. The Crows would be winning this poll by a mile otherwise.
It's a shame the Adelaide haters have to have their votes split between two options. The Crows would be winning this poll by a mile otherwise.
- Thread starter
- #20
What a fantastic contribution to the thread. Whats the matter, did my opinion anger you? Need a tissue?
Yianni
Norm Smith Medallist
Debatable. North and Essendon that year played what many people thought was the best game of the year. It wasn't like there was that much between the two teams. Most people would agree that Essendon had a better record that year, but it's not like noone would have given North a chance in the GF. I think that the way 2000 panned out colours a lot of people's views of this.
- Banned
- #23
I thought Adelaide of 1998 would have been a shoe-in. Ended up something like 5th on the ladder, got flogged by Melbourne early in the finals. They just weren't in the race all season until they won it.
- Nov 27, 2000
- 16,503
- 33,751
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Triple M commentary team
1999 Kangaroos, the team that went 20-5, closely follow by North of 1996
Ohh yea thats right.. we just won it..
You fergot to mention thumping Sydney, Bulldogs and Roos on the way.
You also fergot to mention we played our last 5 games interstate.
Crows of 98 - Superhuman achievement
Similar threads
