2000 Side - Not the Greatest

[Windy_Hill]

Statistically yes, the 2000 team produced the single greatest season on record not only for the Bombers but in the VFL/AFL history. But was this team better than the 84/85 Bombers or even the 93 Bombers

2000 was a freak season where almost eveerything went right. From the James Hird comeback factor to the almost injury free 22 rounds. Mentally the team was so switched on that they played to win without thought of the opponent.

But, the opponents werea pretty dismal lot. The only real threats came from Carlton and Kangaroos - both sides clearly in decline. Have a look at what they have done since 2000 - nothing. Our GF finalist Melbourne was kind of there by default as there was no other meaningful opponent that year.
In 1993, almost every other side was a better team on paper

The 2000 team failed to unearth any young talent, unlike 1993. Apart from perhaps Ramanauskas, the remainder have been largely one hit wonders (Caracella, Blumfield, Heffernan spring to mind) Perhaps only Mark Johnson has emerged as a real long term talnet from that squad.

The rest of the team were either in their advanced years or already proven stars.

The decline from 2000 has been slow but sure with the team now walllowing at the bottom of the table. Unlike in 1993 where the team dropped shortly but then rebounded to be a strong performer in 95, 96, 99 and of course culminated in the 2000 flag.

This current squad has already seen 6 seasons pass without a return to Premiership glory. It would be highly unlikely that we will see another flag this decade.

For all of its one season glory, the 2000 side cannot be viewed as the equal of 84/85 which produced 2 flags and a lasting legacy of greatness.

All flags are to be cherished as are the teams that produce them. 2000 will always be a great year to reflect on but 84/85 will always be the greatest

[swoodley]

Have to disagree with you Windy although I really liked your reasoning.

IMO, the 2000 side was the greatest because of it's dominance of the competition. You can only beat the teams that you are playing against and the 2000 team did that better than any other team before or since.

30 matches including five pre season games for 29 wins and an 11 point loss. This was a superb effort.

The 84/85 team was also brilliant in that it won the two flags (something the 2000 team couldn't match) but it never dominated the competition as much as the 2000 team.

The 1993 was lucky. They made the most of the opportunities that were presented but only won 2/3rds of the games they played.

Your point about the 2000 team declining can also be matched by the 84/85 team which fell away dramatically in '86 whilst the 1993 failed to make the finals the next year.

[Crowny]

Have to agree there Windy. 2000 was good but for my money the 84/85 side was one of the greatest sides of all time. They had a very formidable opponent in Hawthorn but they accounted for them 2 years in a row.

[CameronClayton]

Yep agree the 85 side is the best that has ever walked on the park - even Dermie agrees with this.

We used to play all teams TWICE back in the mid 80's. The VFL had the best 240 players in the country (12 teams x 20 players) - now you have the best 352 players in the AFL (16 teams x 22 players). The talent pool hasn't grown to the same extent as this, so you would think there are blokes getting games now that wouldn't have back in the mid 80's.

And the clincher would be, that the 85 Hawks team would have flogged the 00 Dees team if it was ever possible for 2 teams from different eras to play each other - just remember the names from that Hawks team - they won 4 of the next 6 flags & we absolutely belted them in the 85 GF.

[Windy_Hill]

So who shapes up best here?


FB: Clarke....Weston....Thompson
FF: Bewick...Lloyd.......Mercuri
HB: Foulds....Walsh......Duckworth
HF: Hird........Lucas.....Caracella
C: Wood.....Baker.......Hawker
C: Long.......Misiti........Ramanuskas
HF: Harvey...Daniher....Van Der Haar
HB: Hardwick..Wallis.....Wellman
FF: Ezard.....Salmon.....Merrett
FB: M Johnson..Fletcher...Solomon


Ruck: Madden....Watson....Williams
Ruck: Barnes....J Johnson..Heffernan


I/C: Elshaug, Carey, Clarke
I/C: Moorcroft, Alessio, Barnard, Blumfield

[Makaveli]

Ridiculous, the 2000 teams shits all over any other team. I think people are starting to forget how great we really were back then maybe due to the fact that a few of the players that were in that side began to decline after 2000 (solomon, mark johnson, ramanauskas, Barnes, Moorcroft, blumfield, heffernan) all didn't reach expectatons in the following years and are now being remembered for it. If you took it at the time though Essendon were the greatest team to walk the park no doubt.

[swoodley]

So who shapes up best here?


FB: Clarke....Weston....Thompson
FF: Bewick...Lloyd.......Mercuri
HB: Foulds....Walsh......Duckworth
HF: Hird........Lucas.....Caracella
C: Wood.....Baker.......Hawker
C: Long.......Misiti........Ramanuskas
HF: Harvey...Daniher....Van Der Haar
HB: Hardwick..Wallis.....Wellman
FF: Ezard.....Salmon.....Merrett
FB: M Johnson..Fletcher...Solomon


Ruck: Madden....Watson....Williams
Ruck: Barnes....J Johnson..Heffernan


I/C: Elshaug, Carey, Clarke
I/C: Moorcroft, Alessio, Barnard, Blumfield

Very interesting contrast here Windy.

By my reckoning the 2000 team would have nine winners (in bold) and a few more who would break even

I think the 2000 forward line would easily beat the 84/85 backline and with quality ball being delivered by the likes of Long, Misiti, Rama, Wellman and Barnes, I think they would kick a score that would be too much for the 84/85 team.

I also think the 2000 bench would provide a lot more impact (especially as you've got Nobby Clarke playing in the back pocket and on the bench)

What's your view on the comparison?

[BenDoolan]

So who shapes up best here?


FB: Clarke....Weston....Thompson
FF: Bewick...Lloyd.......Mercuri
HB: Foulds....Walsh......Duckworth
HF: Hird........Lucas.....Caracella
C: Wood.....Baker.......Hawker
C: Long.......Misiti........Ramanuskas
HF: Harvey...Daniher....Van Der Haar
HB: Hardwick..Wallis.....Wellman
FF: Ezard.....Salmon.....Merrett
FB: M Johnson..Fletcher...Solomon


Ruck: Madden....Watson....Williams
Ruck: Barnes....J Johnson..Heffernan


I/C: Elshaug, Carey, Clarke
I/C: Moorcroft, Alessio, Barnard, Blumfield

For better match ups I think Duckworth would play on Hird and Foulds on Caracella.

The centreline is interesting. The 2000 wingmen would beat the 1985 wingmen (although the Hawker - Ramma battle would be great). Baker would easily dominate Misiti. The ruck division of '85 would completely blitz the 2000 division.

The intersting factor in each forward line is if you had Duckworth on Hird, you would have a better result than Wallis on Terry Daniher (i.e, the '85 forward line would be better off). Lloyd would probably beat Weston, dependant upon delivery upfield. Fletcher on Salmon is interesting. Fletcher would be giving away 9cm. In all honesty, I don't think the 2000 backmen would have coped with the height of the 1985 forward line - Salmon, Merrett, Van Der Haar.

Would love to see the Mark Harvey / Damien Hardwick battle. Fairdinkum hard nuts there!

Overall, a dominant ruck division, a champion centreman and a tougher backline would see the '85 team win. That's who I'd put my money on.

And without going through that analysis, the 1985 team was a far better team. It was also without it's other regulars in Merv Neagle, Shane Heard and Frank Dunell on Grand Final day.

P.S You can't have Nobby Clarke in the back pocket and on the bench at the same time. There was only two on the bench in those days.

[F111]

The single most important reason for the season that was 2000, was the 1999 preliminary final.
The 2000 team had something to prove. In '99 they were one week ahead of themselves, and thru their cockiness learnt a very hard lesson. They should have won the '99 GF in a cakewalk from the 'roos, if only they had got there.
2000 was always going to be Essendon's year after that dismal result.

'84-85 v '00?

'84-'85 for me, but it really is just a poll on opinion as I don't think the era's can be compared with any real validity. However I can't help but imagine a Wallis v Merret contest at CHB/CHF...my money would've been on Merret.

The game from the era's are markedly different, but the quality of the opposition was higher in '84-'85.

[robrulz5]

There is no comparison. These days footballers are bigger, stronger, fitter and more skilled.

The 2000 side smashed every single side in it's way like we have never seen before. They did it through sheer anger and hate.

We were called arrogant and Matthew Rogers from Richmond even had the balls to call us arrogant on the radio before we belted Richmond by 101 points kicking 24.23. That's 47 scoring shots, just imagine what we could have done to them if we were accurate!!! (It was funny in that game when Mark Mercuri took a mark in the goalsquare and tip-toed to the line before kicking the goal, possibly because of what Rogers said???)


The 2000 side was an awesome unit and you only had to look at their reaction after the Preliminary final that year. No smiles, a couple of pats on the back and straight into Grand Final week and into glory as the best team ever.

[BenDoolan]

There is no comparison. These days footballers are bigger, stronger, fitter and more skilled.

Have to disagree rob. Is Fletcher, Barnes, Wellman, Alessio, Lloyd, Lucas any bigger than Salmon, Merrett, Van Der Haar, Madden, Walsh, TD?
Is M Johnson, J Johnson, Solomon, Hardwick, Wallis any stronger than Duckworth, Merrett, Thompson, Harvey, Carey? Is Misiti, Long, Rama, Mercuri more fitter and more skilled than Watson, Baker, Hawker, Foulds?

The '85 team were just as arrogant and ruthless. In a game against North Melbourne, they lead by 100 points at half time! They were as tough as nails. You only have to look at the brawl in the 85 GF to see they were physically intimidating. Don't forget Hawthorn had some of the toughest blokes to ever play the game.....Matthews, Brereton, Dipierdomenico, Ayres etc, and yet, they were the ones who were intimidated. Brereton has admitted that he felt intimidated and feared for his safety against us, and another Hawk player years ago admitted that he vomited with the news that he was to play on Roger Merrett.

The '85 Bombers were easily the strongest, fittest and most skilled team during that period. The 2000 Bombers were easily the strongest, fittest and most skilled team for that season. The argument as to who was better can never be proven, but there is no way the 2000 Bombers were stronger or more skilled than the '85 unit.

[F111]

The 2000 side was an awesome unit and you only had to look at their reaction after the Preliminary final that year. No smiles, a couple of pats on the back and straight into Grand Final week and into glory as the best team ever.

Ahh the memories of the '99 PF...I'd wager it ran thru some of their minds that day.

[billyduckworth]

2000 was a great year, but the 84/85 side was better IMO. I agree with Cameron Clayton that the quality of the opposition was much stronger then - Hawthorn were a real power team and yet we still beat them (in fact, we also beat them easily in 1986 during the home & away season - if we hadn't had such a bad run with injuries in 1986 that side could have won THREE flags!).

[antcl]

Can't remember 84/85, so won't comment there. But I will comment on a few things regarding the 2000 side.

It should be remembered, with a bit of luck with injuries we could have won 3 instead of one flag. In 1999 we were missing Lucas & Hird for the finals. In 2001 half our major players missed periods throughout the year and were down on match fitness in the finals.

Windy, I'm not sure if a requisite should be to find young talent. But the team had Caracella (we got Cupido, McPhee AND a 1st round pick for him, he won a premiership at the Lions and was one of the reasons Collingwood was doing so well in the 1st half of this year - damn good player), Rama got injured, Riolli who would have been in the 2000 side kept getting injured, although Blumfield, Heff & Solomon have all gone backwards.

I think you're under rating Carlton of 2000, although they did go backwards due to injuries at the important end of the season.

BenDoolan, I believe Misiti averaged over 30 possesions a game in finals. He was a massively underrated player, and although I've got no idea how good Baker was, I find it hard to believe anyone would 'clearly' beat Misiti in the centre in the finals.

[swoodley]

Hey Ant

I firmly believe that the 2000 side was the best but having been around in the days of Leon Baker, I can tell you that he was one of the best players that I have ever seen.

Superlative skills on both sides of his body, he was a man ahead of his time. I don't know that he would have thrashed Joey, but he would have beaten him.

If you ever get the chance, watch his performances during the '84 finals series. I think you'll be impressed.

[BenDoolan]

BenDoolan, I believe Misiti averaged over 30 possesions a game in finals. He was a massively underrated player, and although I've got no idea how good Baker was, I find it hard to believe anyone would 'clearly' beat Misiti in the centre in the finals.

I'm a HUGE Misiti fan, don't get me wrong. Misiti was a terrific, consistent performer, and his 2000 finals games were absolutely brilliant.

If you ever get the chance to see any finals games of the '84, '85 season, you will see what I mean. Leon Baker was awesome. Not only did he win many contested balls in the centre (against top quality opposition), he also went forward and wreaked havoc. Baker was a magnificent kick with either foot, and solidly bore in and won the hard ball. He was inspirational. I'm not saying Misiti wasn't, he certainly was effective, but as you say, it was almost unnoticed and certainly was underrated.

[rama_fan]

With the 2000 side a lot of the players in that side were playing at their footballing peak.

Hird, Lloyd, Mercuri, Misiti, Solomon, Wallis, Ramannauskas, Heffernan, Caracella, Blumfield, Fletcher, Hardwick, Wellman, Moorcroft and Barnard are players who I reckon were operating at at least 90% of their top form.

This is especially true for Solomon, Wallis, Blumfield, Heffernan, Caracella, Barnard and Rama.

On paper the side might not look as strong now but when you consider you had so many guys playing in career best form it all adds up to an exceptional football side.

Only seen videos and heard stories about 84/85 so wont get drawn into comparing the two.

[robrulz5]

There is no comparison. These days footballers are bigger, stronger, fitter and more skilled.

Have to disagree rob. Is Fletcher, Barnes, Wellman, Alessio, Lloyd, Lucas any bigger than Salmon, Merrett, Van Der Haar, Madden, Walsh, TD?
Is M Johnson, J Johnson, Solomon, Hardwick, Wallis any stronger than Duckworth, Merrett, Thompson, Harvey, Carey? Is Misiti, Long, Rama, Mercuri more fitter and more skilled than Watson, Baker, Hawker, Foulds?

The '85 team were just as arrogant and ruthless. In a game against North Melbourne, they lead by 100 points at half time! They were as tough as nails. You only have to look at the brawl in the 85 GF to see they were physically intimidating. Don't forget Hawthorn had some of the toughest blokes to ever play the game.....Matthews, Brereton, Dipierdomenico, Ayres etc, and yet, they were the ones who were intimidated. Brereton has admitted that he felt intimidated and feared for his safety against us, and another Hawk player years ago admitted that he vomited with the news that he was to play on Roger Merrett.

The '85 Bombers were easily the strongest, fittest and most skilled team during that period. The 2000 Bombers were easily the strongest, fittest and most skilled team for that season. The argument as to who was better can never be proven, but there is no way the 2000 Bombers were stronger or more skilled than the '85 unit.

As the game has developed. The players these days run alot faster meaning they hit eachother alot harder so players need to manage this by having more muscle. Lloyd, Fletcher and Lucas would probably beat any of the 84/85 side in a marking contest as they would be alot stronger even though being around the same size as Van Der Haar, Merrett, etc.

The 84/85 side may have been skilled but they wouldn't keep up with the pace of today's game as the ball now moves quicker making players make faster decisions.

[BenDoolan]

As the game has developed. The players these days run alot faster meaning they hit eachother alot harder so players need to manage this by having more muscle. Lloyd, Fletcher and Lucas would probably beat any of the 84/85 side in a marking contest as they would be alot stronger even though being around the same size as Van Der Haar, Merrett, etc.

The 84/85 side may have been skilled but they wouldn't keep up with the pace of today's game as the ball now moves quicker making players make faster decisions.

Hmmm, this is interesting. I think I opened a discussion about the game of today as compared to 30 years ago re: skills. There were many good debates suggesting the modern game is better and vice versa. What it left us with was questions such as.......if the game is so much quicker today, why aren't we seeing higher scoring in matches? And if the skills are so much better today, why do we see the same amount of inaccuracies at goal?

It is true that today's players have access to greater training facilities and training aides than 20 years ago. I mean today we have sports science, dieticians, computerised analysis, sports psychologists, hyperbaric chambers, altitude training etc, etc.

Back in the 80's it was a slab of beer after the game (before the game in Vander's case) and meat pies washed down with a can of coke. Simple basic training drills at that was that. If those superstars who performed great deeds in the 80's had access to today's technology and programs, they would have been even better performed players than they were. Now that is scary!

[billyduckworth]

The idea of Vander playing WITHOUT a slab and a ciggy before the game is what is REALLY SCARY!