1999 was the one that really hurt. We only had two players out of our best side and had a great year.
In 2001 even though it really hurt we had several players playing when they shouldn't have been.
How many flags should Sheedy have won?
I think we're forgetting that we just scraped over the line in the Prelim v Hawthorn in 2001. We weren't so invincible as everyone thought we were. Going into the GF with known injuries and the fact that it was 26 degrees conspired against us. We were up at half time but then we well and truly ran out of gas.Royza wrote:Richmond were to blame for the 2001 GF loss. They gave Bris a training run in the prelim. Dirty about 90, 99. Balanced out by 84, 93.
But most clubs can lay claim to yrs where they let the big 1 slip.
Did people ever think that maybe we wouldn't of been as great in 2000 if we hadn't of had the heartbreak in 99. Just a thought, but i remember saying after 99 we will be unbeatable next year, knowing that hird and lucas would be coming back into a side that finished the home and away on top of the ladder, plus the will to make amends for 99.
To say brisbane were a better side in 2001, nuh i don't agree, they just peaked at the end of the season and we had some injury worries. Our second quarter in that game showed that when essendon of those years were going at full throttle, nobody could match them, unfortunately we couldn't sustain it till the last quarter and sheedy's moronic decision to not play a zone defence in the grand final cost us big time.
To say brisbane were a better side in 2001, nuh i don't agree, they just peaked at the end of the season and we had some injury worries. Our second quarter in that game showed that when essendon of those years were going at full throttle, nobody could match them, unfortunately we couldn't sustain it till the last quarter and sheedy's moronic decision to not play a zone defence in the grand final cost us big time.
I don't understand the reference to Salmon and Madden. Madden finished in 91/92 and Salmon didn't get traded until the end of '95/96 so there is no connectionealesy wrote:What...just that match??!!Rossoneri wrote:What about somerville?rama_fan wrote:2001 Brisbane were the better side.
You can blame Sheedy for playing Mercuri I think, we did run out of legs that game and Hird and Mercuri were next to useless. You can't blame him for playing Hird, but Mercuri might not have been such a good option.
1996 we probably lose to North in the GF, 1999 we were stiff and the players didnt perform in the last quarter, we were inaccurate and Dean Wallis had a massive brain fade, Mercs misses an easy shot at goal and Cara kicked about 33 points. Can't blame Sheedy there.
He was pathetic in that match, should have been shot after that game, not just delisted.
More like pretty much his entire career!!!
It boggles the mind that we traded Salmon away because he wanted to play ruck, when Simon Madden was nearing the end of his career, and the other ruckman around was Peter Somerville.
Another Sheedy favourite for mine.
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
-
Windy_Hill
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 12859
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:23 pm
Definitely. You only had to watch the pre-season cup games that year to see how pumped up the side was. The way Hirdy hit the packs coming back from a year out of the game, the way JJ ran through John Blakey.Makaveli wrote:Did people ever think that maybe we wouldn't of been as great in 2000 if we hadn't of had the heartbreak in 99
They were obsessed with redemption.
Hunger is a powerful motivator
Madden retired at the end of 1992 although the writing was on the wall during the season. The other ruck options once Salmon was traded were Alessio and O'Connor.ealesy wrote:okay, I wasn't sure of the timing of those two events.
So we traded Salmon at a time the Peter Somerville was our number 1 ruckman.
That boggles the mind even more!!!
The only one we really missed out on was 99. Brisbane were a FAR better side coming into the 2001 grand final. They had won 15 in a row coming in and were red hot - we had just stumbled over the line against Hawthorn and were dead on our feet.
You couldn't fool your own mother on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine.
Well they won the same amount of games as us (17) that season. When they won, they convincingly won. We had 5 games decided by 2 goals or less, including that bizarre Kangaroos match where we won by 12 points after trailing by 69. One thing you have to remember with that amazing comeback is that we were actually 69 points down at one stage without Carey and Mick Martyn in their team. I just think everyone thought we were invincible in 2001, but we did have chinks in the armour. We were very good, but not great. In the only other game we played Brisbane in that season, they beat us by 28 points. Brisbane were better than us.Makaveli wrote: To say brisbane were a better side in 2001, nuh i don't agree, they just peaked at the end of the season and we had some injury worries. Our second quarter in that game showed that when essendon of those years were going at full throttle, nobody could match them, unfortunately we couldn't sustain it till the last quarter and sheedy's moronic decision to not play a zone defence in the grand final cost us big time.
IMO the only one that got away was 1999 and if we won that would we have been as good as we were in 2000? It's a question that cant be answered.
But in direct context to the topic, Sheedy should have won 25 GF's could have won every time we made the finals but ultimately has won 4 and whilst im eagerly awaiting the next one, im more than happy with 4 in 25 years considering most teams have not won any.
But in direct context to the topic, Sheedy should have won 25 GF's could have won every time we made the finals but ultimately has won 4 and whilst im eagerly awaiting the next one, im more than happy with 4 in 25 years considering most teams have not won any.
On Salmon, we got Wellman & Barnard for him, so I'm not sure if we didn't cut pretty even or better on that deal.
On the topic, it depends on your view. If Lucas/Hird were available for the 2nd half of 99, or we hadn't had all those players out with injuries for stretches through 2001, maybe.
But to with the teams we had, Sheedy would have been pushing it. In 2001, we ran out of puff. In 1999, sure we could have won. But North were damn good, and most people were saying it would be a pretty close GF. When we'd played in the 2nd half of the season, it was one of the best games I've ever seen, and I think we won by about 10 points. Could have easily gone the other way. So to say 1999 should have been 'misere' is just ludicrous.
And in 1996 we lost two of the three finals, with the only win being against WCE who if we had the current system we would have played in Subi instead of at the MCG. We finished 5th or 6th on the ladder I think, and although we went close to getting into the GF, I think we had a lucky run into the PF and North would have beaten us if we'd made it.
On the topic, it depends on your view. If Lucas/Hird were available for the 2nd half of 99, or we hadn't had all those players out with injuries for stretches through 2001, maybe.
But to with the teams we had, Sheedy would have been pushing it. In 2001, we ran out of puff. In 1999, sure we could have won. But North were damn good, and most people were saying it would be a pretty close GF. When we'd played in the 2nd half of the season, it was one of the best games I've ever seen, and I think we won by about 10 points. Could have easily gone the other way. So to say 1999 should have been 'misere' is just ludicrous.
And in 1996 we lost two of the three finals, with the only win being against WCE who if we had the current system we would have played in Subi instead of at the MCG. We finished 5th or 6th on the ladder I think, and although we went close to getting into the GF, I think we had a lucky run into the PF and North would have beaten us if we'd made it.