Bombertalk

Pretty simple really. Whilst the game is much quicker and the guys playing are now genuin athletes, scores have not increased because the athletic ability of players now allows more men playing behind the ball hence all the flooding.

IMO just about any recent champions would make past days champions look like chumps, simply because of the preoffessionalismn of their preperation nowadays. Therefore IMO the 2000 side would thrash the 84-85 side.

That said, given the same proffessional preperation, past champions would still be champions in todays game. There is no substitute to football ability, athleticismn just compliments it greatly. If the 84-85 side had the same level of preperation it would be a very interesting contest indeed.

Off the topic I would love the game to go back to the days where they couldnt run all day and hence didnt flood and played more contested footy. Maybe the AFL should limit training to 2 3 hour sessions per week and make after game beers a prerequisite written in their contract.

Sol wrote:make after game beers a prerequisite written in their contract.

Looks like theyve already done that with Ben Cousins and Michael Gardiner

I am not sure about todays players being beigger stronger fitter.

I would argue that in the 80's, Sheedy put his team through far more gruelling fitness development than what the guys today go through. There may be more science to fitness training today but I am sure back in the 80's those boys could run just as fast and hit just as hard.

CameronClayton wrote: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.

What he said.

Back in the 80s most of the players would have had other jobs outside of footy as well and I dont think they would have done as much training as the players of 2000.

If they had a similar level of preparation, access to the same level of support and facilities the 2000 side did then the 84/85 would beat the 2000 side.

BenDoolan wrote:

robrulz5 wrote:

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?

We don't see higher scores these days as there is alot more negating of players especially the best players who are "tagged" and the introduction of flooding has hurt the ability of sides to score huge scores.

BenDoolan wrote:

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?

We don't see higher scores these days as there is alot more negating of players especially the best players who are "tagged" and the introduction of flooding has hurt the ability of sides to score huge scores.

robrulz5 wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:

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?

We don't see higher scores these days as there is alot more negating of players especially the best players who are "tagged" and the introduction of flooding has hurt the ability of sides to score huge scores.

Well if the game is "quicker" today, how do teams get the time to flood back?

As the game is quicker players are alot quicker to get back.

There is also alot more tactics today which makes it easier for players to get back, they breed them smarter these days...

robrulz5 wrote:As the game is quicker players are alot quicker to get back.

There is also alot more tactics today which makes it easier for players to get back, they breed them smarter these days...

I know it's futile trying to prove which era was better, but lets just say the the Bombers of '84, '85 were kings of the competition back then and the Bombers of 2000 were also kings of the competition during that time. There is no denying that fact!

Certainly true!

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The 84/85 side won TWO premierships.
The 2000 side won ONE.

billyduckworth wrote:The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The 84/85 side won TWO premierships.
The 2000 side won ONE.

That proves nothing except that the 84/85 team won two flags and the 2000 team won one.

It's like saying that the 2000 team only lost one game all season whereas the '84 team lost 5 including a final and the '85 team lost three, so the 2000 team was better.

It's all just personal opinion anyway (which is why we all say our piece)

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

Vander just wouldnt turn up without a beer or a fag.

BenDoolan wrote:

robrulz5 wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:

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?

We don't see higher scores these days as there is alot more negating of players especially the best players who are "tagged" and the introduction of flooding has hurt the ability of sides to score huge scores.

Well if the game is "quicker" today, how do teams get the time to flood back?

We said it is quicker not it moves forward quicker. The ball is moved forward, backward and sideways at a very quick rate and most footballers run much quicker today. Unfortunately the fact that players are fit enough and fast enough to drop back from forward to defence and flood their back half with anywhere up to 17 players forces the flooding tactics that are common today and thereby reduces the genuin 1 on 1 contests. As a result scoring today has not increased.