Leigh Matthews- Collingwood Should Have Won 2002 Flag

[Chewy]

This year in 2006 i think Adelaide was the best team by a friggin mile

Maybe. They definitely were in white hot form in the middle part of the season. Whether this means they were the best side is a matter of opinion.

You don't know what Port would have been able to achive in a similar position. Who knows? They were good enough to win 18 games. They were pretty good. It's eay to say "Team A couldn't do this", when you can fall back on what actually happened in history to "justify everything" Remember what I was saying about arguments of convenience? Even if you can argue that Brisbane was the best of 2003, one thing was for sure - there was no stand out, and if they were the best (which was debatable) it wasn't by much. This was a team that lost their Qualifying Final remember. There was no stand out team.

How's this for an argument of convenience: Port were unable to beat the 4th placed Swans at home, they made heavy weather of an average Essendon, then they were spanked by Collingwood at the MCG. These matches prove that they were not the best team of 2003. It doesn't matter how good they looked in the 22 games prior. Their record in the biggest games did not compare to Brisbane's finals performances.

It's not about hindsight. It's about paying close attention to things when the stakes and pressure are highest. Who gives a **** that Port thrashed the shit teams in April? There were two MCG games late in the season, seven days apart that confirmed (for me) who the best side was. In round 18, Port had to pull out all stops to beat a middle of road Hawthorn. They put paid to our season, but it took a little panic from the Hawks, an ounce of luck and a piece of Pickett magic that saw them snatch victory with the last play of the game. Seven days later, a stuttering Lions faced a rampant Collingwood at the G. The experts were freely tipping a Magpie massacre. Well it was a Magpie massacre of sorts. Jonathan Brown and Martin Pike left a trail of dead birds in their wake and the contest was well and truly over before half time.

I don't know where you are plucking this "stand out best team" line from.
I was reacting to your singling out of 4 particular teams over the past 20 years as premiers who weren't the best in their particular year. I took issue with two of your selections.

What if that was a knockout 2v3 "semi" final in a 4-team finals series (supposing)? They wouldn't have even made the GF and it would have been a Pies-Swans play-off! It's not like they were a stand out or anything, and it's embarassing to suggest they were.

Now there is an argument of convenience if ever I've seen one. The fact is the Lions weren't eliminated and unfortunately for Pie fans, Lethal's Lions were able to show everyone who was best on the biggest day.

LOL at your use of stats. So, IF you are selective with your stats and only include parts of the season (i.e Hawthorn winning 13 of their last 14) then, you can make a case for Hawthorn?

I wasn't using the stats to prove my case. I was using them to present a different perspective on the 1991 season. It's easy to look at the ladder, or remember how sensational the Eagles looked over the first 13 or 14 rounds. What I was trying to do was turn the season upside down and get you to analyse the last half of the year. Hawthorn were the best team in that period.

For what it's worth, West Coast was so dominant in 1991, that it defied belief.... The Eagles fell away late after the state of origin that year, but I've got to be honest I had never felt a team was unbeatable UNTIL the first half of 1991.... That's how good they were. They played their worst football at the wrong time of the year, but on balance, they were the team that played to the highest level of quality for the largest part of the season. Their best was better than anyone else's

The Eagles were certainly ultra-dominant early on in the season. They were were well drilled, hungry and trained to the minute. They were also playing a different style of game than what teams were used to countering. Their chief rivals at the time, Geelong and Hawthorn also got off to very scratchy starts in season 1991. Neither of them played their best footy until later in the year, perhaps knowing that the season is a marathon and not a sprint. I would dispute that their best from early in the season would've been enough to make up the 9 goals and beat Hawthorn on Grand Final day. We'll never know.

But I really, really like the line "Their best was better than anyone else's".
This is precisely the point I've tried to argue with you previously.
Brisbane in 2003 were a great side. Forget their average form in the home and away. In the biggest games, their best was better than anyone else's. It's also why I think Essendon's record in 2000 is irrelevant when discussing the greatest teams of all time. I prefer to focus on whether their best was better than anyone else's.

It's the easiest thing in the world to sit back after the GF and say "Team X was the best." Anyone can be an expert after the event

I agree somewhat with what you're saying, but I also think it's folly to base your opinions on home and away games in June and ignore what happens in September.

[In 2002] My feeling was that Brisbane, when on the road, were still vulneralbe. They were 5-5 on the road in 2002, and on GF day were playing Collingowod (4th) who were at home... in the wet, with the crowd behind them, and had some momentum. I couldn't see any justification for Brisbane wining easily. It always felt close to me.

As the day dawned, I gave the Pies a puncher's chance. There was an element of "nothing to lose" about them. The heavy rain and the shocking umpiring evened things up for them. Just about everything went against the Lions that day and yet they still got up. The weather, the crowd, injuries, the umpires, the bounce of the ball... I mean it sincerely. That should've really been Collignwood's day. I can understand why they were so disappointed afterwards.

But play that game again under different variable conditions and the Lions would've spanked them 9 times out of 10. That's my own personal point of view.

[Myths about finals and game plans]A good style of play will hold up under any type of pressure. There was a myth that Port's style couldnt hold up in finals.. put to rest in 2004 when they won the flag easily, over the BEST of Brisbane's 4 Grand Final sides.

If you look at the last 20 Grand Final winners it tells you one thing - no style of play is "more successful" than any other. Pagan had success with his long kicking, West Coast with their possession game in '92 and '94, Sydney with their style last year etc etc. The one constant is talent.

Firstly, I disagree that the Lions were at their best in 2004. They were barely hanging on and were lucky to make the Gf after Geelong choked against them in the PF.

But about the "premiership myths" that you speak of, I agree that talent is always a denominator. But talent alone is worth nothing. Otherwise Geelong would've won a few flags in the 90's. Or the Saints in recent years. I don't think that any one particular style of play is a pre-requisite to winning Grand Finals, but I think you'll find that the common denominator is not what I said before about eliminating risks. Scratch that. What I should've said was: teams that win finals are bold and are prepared to take risks, BUT ELIMINATE COSTLY ERRORS - whether this be though superior skills and ball usage, or playing the percentages and playing with predictability to their teammates, or teams that organise themselves in such a way that they minimise scoreboard damage from their own mistakes, but make the opposition pay dearly for theirs.

Again, it's not simply about being a hindsight wizard, but acknowledgment that some teams make better use of the talent at their disposal than others. Coaches of the also-rans do not get obsessed by the game plans of the Premiers because they are idiots with no ideas of their own. They recognise that some things work better than others and strive to improve their own team's performances. The good coaches do, anyhow...

What are you on about? havn't Melbourne got a 6-6 finals recod under Daniher? Shouldn't we expect a 50-50 record in finals over a period of time? Isn't that reasonable?

Melbourne have looked like world beaters during the home and away, regularly beating the top sides, but come September they haven't managed to win a final of real consequence since Farmer's purple patch in 2000.

 

[Chewy]

I think West Coast will win by 4-5 goals this week. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Agree on both points

 

[Dan26]

Chewy, I don't relly want t respond to all that because it's late, but I will firstly say about the Demons is that they havn't exactly been world beaters in the H&A as you imply. They've had some good wins, sure, but what good teams havn't had good wins? They've never finished higher than 5th (since 2000) so they havn't ever been "that" good really. They havn't been in the top 4 since 2000. It's reasonable to expect the losing team from week one to rebound against teams like the Demons (like this year) in week 2.

I don't know what the focus is on Melbourne for? They're just one of those marginally better than average teams (one of many over the years), who havn't quite got what it takes to be the best. Six-six in finals is as good as could be expected. The finals they lost, they pretty much lost to who they should have lost (except losing to Essendon in 2004, they were better than us.)

As for 2004 Brisbane, I don't think they were "just hanging on." They might have in the last 2 week of the season, sure, but they weren't a team on the slide. Yet. The slide happened in 2005. In 2004, they finished 2nd with the best percentrage of ANY of teir 4 Grand Final teams. Add this to the fact they were at their most experienced, and I believe it was the best of their 4 teams.

Port was just too good. Port was a far better side than history may judge them as. Make no mistake they were every bit as good as Brisbane. Maybe at finalsa time they jut thought it would all happen for them? it was only ever those first finals in 2002 and 2003 (where they were overconfident) that f****d them. They rebounded in week 2 both times and lost a PF on the road to a top-2 team with a week off on that team's home ground. So it's really only the first week that's stuffed them.

But those two games aside, I thought they were every bit as good as Brisbane, based on what I saw. I don't like the idea of watching a team lose one upset final and conveniently forgetting everything that happened before then, like it doesn't exist. They were bloody good. Every year. And they proved their style of play can beat Brisbane's style in 2004. It just didn't work out for them in '02 and '03, but sh*t happens. Upsets happen.

 

[Chewy]

the Demons.. havn't exactly been world beaters in the H&A as you imply. They've had some good wins, sure, but.. never finished higher than 5th (since 2000) so they havn't ever been "that" good really. They havn't been in the top 4 since 2000....

In each of the last 3 years, there has been a time when Melbourne has challenged for flag favouritism, or been regarded as a possible Grand Finalist. I'm talking well over the halfway mark. In 2004 they were on top of the ladder and flag favourites with a few rounds to go. After they poleaxed Collingwood in this year's Queen's Birthday clash you had club luminaries coming out of the woodwork to declare them the best Melbourne side since the sixties.

I don't know what the focus is on Melbourne for?

They are a classic example of what we're talking about, regarding styles of play/gameplans, etc holding up under pressure in September. Rightly or wrongly, they've been accorded lofty status after looking like world beaters during the home and away season. eg. smashing the Lions at the Gabba a couple of years ago when Neitz kicked 8 goals. Then the important finals come round and all of that panache, the run and carry off the half back line, the mercurial wizardry of Robbo, Yze and Davey seems to just disappear. Not having a go at those individuals, just pointing out that those goals and marks of the year aren't as easy to perform against quality opposition.

As for 2004 Brisbane, I don't think they were "just hanging on." They might have in the last 2 week of the season, sure, but they weren't a team on the slide.... I believe it was the best of their 4 teams.

Lynch wasn't anywhere near the same force as in previous seasons. Voss was the undisputed best player in the comp from 2001-2002, but due to injury, he was struggling to maintain the same consistency. Leppitsch was restricted with injuries, as were the Scotts. Experience and the sheer quality of their top players meant that they kept winning, but make no mistake, they were struggling in the 2004 finals series. Geelong should've beaten them. The killer blow wasn't the crushing hit on Sean Hart, as bad as that looked, but the knee injury suffered by Brown. He was a shadow of himself on GF day. Port were fresher and knew their opponents were "ripe" for the plucking.

Port was just too good. Port was a far better side than history may judge them as. Make no mistake they were every bit as good as Brisbane.

I agree that Port were a very good side and better than most people gave them credit for, but to suggest they were the equal of the Lions is sheer lunacy. Go to bed.

it was only ever those first finals in 2002 and 2003 (where they were overconfident) that f****d them. They rebounded in week 2 both times and lost a PF on the road to a top-2 team with a week off on that team's home ground. So it's really only the first week that's stuffed them.
But those two games aside, I thought they were every bit as good as Brisbane, based on what I saw.

One game stuffed them, you say?

2002 QF - Port Adelaide 14.11 (95) Collingwood 16.12 (108)
2002 SF - Port Adelaide 11.17 (83) Essendon 8.11 (59)
2002 PF - Brisbane 21.12 (138) Port Adelaide 12.10 (82)

2003 QF - Port Adelaide 13.10 (88) Sydney 15.10 (100)
2003SF - Port Adelaide 12.11 (83) Essendon 6.8 (56)
2003 PF - Collingwood 17.10 (112) Port Adelaide 9.14 (68)

They not only went to water on home soil against inherently inferior opposition, but they were SPANKED in two consective Preliminary Finals.

Brisbane were able to rebound from their 2003 QF loss to Collingwood under lights, remember. That game where Vossy was on one leg and Didak kicked a couple of goals from out of his arse. Well the Lions were able to put that night behind them, thrash the Crows at the Gabba, overcome a deficit in the 2003 PF and kill the Swans in Sydney by 44pts, then humiliate Collingwood at the MCG to win their 3RD FLAG IN A ROW.

You are joking, aren't you?

 

[Dan26]

In each of the last 3 years, there has been a time when Melbourne has challenged for flag favouritism, or been regarded as a possible Grand Finalist. I'm talking well over the halfway mark. In 2004 they were on top of the ladder and flag favourites with a few rounds to go. After they poleaxed Collingwood in this year's Queen's Birthday clash you had club luminaries coming out of the woodwork to declare them the best Melbourne side since the sixties.

They are a classic example of what we're talking about, regarding styles of play/gameplans, etc holding up under pressure in September. Rightly or wrongly, they've been accorded lofty status after looking like world beaters during the home and away season. eg. smashing the Lions at the Gabba a couple of years ago when Neitz kicked 8 goals. Then the important finals come round and all of that panache, the run and carry off the half back line, the mercurial wizardry of Robbo, Yze and Davey seems to just disappear. Not having a go at those individuals, just pointing out that those goals and marks of the year aren't as easy to perform against quality opposition.

They might have been considered flag favourites by some, but did re really think they were that good? Really? Some of their late season slumps have been for two months. Such as 2005. This is not a one-off game or a bad "couple of weeks." We are talking big chunks of the season here. The best teams are consistent winners, and Melbourne was not that, and hence they have not been a great side. Sides like West Coast in 1991 might have had form slumps but they still were able to win games (and finals) while doing so. It's apples vs oranges. Melbourne are not that good, were not consistent over the season so I'm not sure what their relevance is.

Lynch wasn't anywhere near the same force as in previous seasons. Voss was the undisputed best player in the comp from 2001-2002, but due to injury, he was struggling to maintain the same consistency. Leppitsch was restricted with injuries, as were the Scotts. Experience and the sheer quality of their top players meant that they kept winning, but make no mistake, they were struggling in the 2004 finals series. Geelong should've beaten them. The killer blow wasn't the crushing hit on Sean Hart, as bad as that looked, but the knee injury suffered by Brown. He was a shadow of himself on GF day. Port were fresher and knew their opponents were "ripe" for the plucking.

It's easy to say Lynch and Voss were past their best, but the facts are they still finished second with a percentage of 137% (higher than any other of their Grand Final years) still had their vaunted midfield, and still had many players at their best, including many were were better than they were in 2001and 2002, such a J.Brown, who was (and is) at his peak. Aker kicked 44 goals in 2004 more than any other year. They were still at their peak as a team.

You say they struggled in the finals series. Didn't seem to struggle in their 80-point win over St.Kilda in week one. Did you forget about that? Injuries began to curtail them after that, but so what? They had more injuries in 2003. They just didn't have as much opposition.

You don't win by 80 points in week one of the finals, after winning 16 games with a percentage of 137% then get a week off, and claim that they were "on the wane." They lost the premiership because they weren't as good a side as Port. Geelong stretched them because of some injuries to Brisbane but ALSO because Geelong was a capable side and they were playing at home. Brisbane was always still vulnerable away from home. Port thrashed them, because they were simply a better side. Brisbane also had injuries in 2003, but Collingowod wasn't that good to take advantage. Port was good. Very good. As good as Brisbane, if not better.

I agree that Port were a very good side and better than most people gave them credit for, but to suggest they were the equal of the Lions is sheer lunacy. Go to bed.

Port beat them didn't they? How can they not be better (by your logic.) I know the best team doesn't always win the GF, but 2004 was not one of those years. The best tean DID win. I'd suggest it is lunacy to suggest the Lions were better than them in 2004. In the other years, they were at least even. I'll give 2001 as a year where Bris was definately better. 2002 and 2003, nothing in it.

One game stuffed them, you say?

2002 QF - Port Adelaide 14.11 (95) Collingwood 16.12 (108)
2002 SF - Port Adelaide 11.17 (83) Essendon 8.11 (59)
2002 PF - Brisbane 21.12 (138) Port Adelaide 12.10 (82)

2003 QF - Port Adelaide 13.10 (88) Sydney 15.10 (100)
2003SF - Port Adelaide 12.11 (83) Essendon 6.8 (56)
2003 PF - Collingwood 17.10 (112) Port Adelaide 9.14 (68)

They not only went to water on home soil against inherently inferior opposition, but they were SPANKED in two consective Preliminary Finals.

Those PF losses were to top-2 teams on those teams home ground after they'd had a week off. Port was never going towin at the Gabba, and never going to beat a fresh top-2 Collingowod before 80,000 Pie fans with a week off. The first week f**** d them. In both years. 2004 showed that if they are swithced on they are every bit as good as Brisbane. Despite what you say, they defeated the best, and most experienced (and staistically the most dominant) of Brisbane's 4 Grand Final teams.

Brisbane were able to rebound from their 2003 QF loss to Collingwood under lights, remember. That game where Vossy was on one leg and Didak kicked a couple of goals from out of his arse. Well the Lions were able to put that night behind them, thrash the Crows at the Gabba, overcome a deficit in the 2003 PF and kill the Swans in Sydney by 44pts, then humiliate Collingwood at the MCG to win their 3RD FLAG IN A ROW.

The fact it was Brisbane's 3rd flag in a row as a club is absolutely irrelevant in the discussion. Premierships are individual achievements, and should be treated a such.The 2003 flag side should be treated as one side. In 2003.Premierships are singular achievements. Always have bene, always will be. The 1998-1999 Lions team is not the same. One got the wooden spoon, one came 3rd. Similarly, the 2002-2003 Lions teams are not the same. One was in 2002 and the other in 2003. If Essendon wisn the flag in 2007 (laughing) our 2006-2007 teams are not the same. Premierships are individual, singular achievements by clubs, and that will never change. The Lions 2003 flag did NOT make their 2002 side any better.

As for their 2003 finals campaign, it was impressive (as ALL successful premiershp campaigns are) but it would have been more impressive if they had won their first final and not done it the hard way. Like I said earlier, what if it was a knockout final-4 (yes i know it's not, but suppose it was.) They wouldn't have made the GF and does anyone doubt Collingwood would still have been victorious in that first 2v3 final. I don't doubt Collingwood still would have won the game.

The proboem is because they went on to win the flag in 2003, people tend to - wrongly - elevate their 2001 and 2002 flags because they then won in 2003. The 2001 and 2002 flags do not become better after the event because the same club wins two years later. Flags are individual achievements. Multiple premiershps are cub achievements. Brisbane was good but not "that" good. Port were every bit as consistently good in my opinion from year to year... they just need a flag to "prove" their game style could handle it. And they delivered this in 2004.

It's easy to look at the end reuslts (that being 3 flags to Brsbane) and justify they were "unbeatable" or "best ever" or whatever, but once again, I think that is an argument of convenience, just based on looking at end result only. I mean an American who knows nothing of the AFL can look at the end reuslt and come to that conclusion. I'd like to think I'm a bit more knowledeable than that, and can make my own judgement based on what I see. I think those that know football know they were not unbetable, know that they could easily have been rolled in 2002, and that Port were just as good. As usual, the end results cloud people's judgements, no doubt, as it will do this Saturday if Sydney win back-to-back titles, in two years where (in my opinion) Adelaide were the best team both years.

 

[mrbehemoth]

Even if it was a goal, it would not have guaranteed a Collingwood victory. It's not like it was after the siren, four points behind or anything.

 

[mrbehemoth]

Brisbane were able to rebound from their 2003 QF loss to Collingwood under lights, remember. That game where Vossy was on one leg and Didak kicked a couple of goals from out of his arse. Well the Lions were able to put that night behind them, thrash the Crows at the Gabba, overcome a deficit in the 2003 PF and kill the Swans in Sydney by 44pts, then humiliate Collingwood at the MCG to win their 3RD FLAG IN A ROW.

You are joking, aren't you?

I'm pretty sure they didn't overcome a deficit in the PF. They led Sydney comfortably, and Sydney stormed back to be within 3 at 3/4 time, but Brisbane was still in front. It was the momentum of the Swans that had everyone thinking they were on their way. If the Lions did overcome a deficit, it must have been a minor one early on.

 

[Chewy]

They might have been considered flag favourites by some, but did re really think they were that good?

So now who's talking like an expert with benefit of hindsight?
Your words: It's the easiest thing in the world to sit back after the GF and say "Team X was the best." Anyone can be an expert after the event.

Melbourne are not that good, were not consistent over the season so I'm not sure what their relevance is.

I already explained to you. You seem to believe it's all a myth that certain styles or gameplans can help teams win premierships. You think that Sydney's style has nothing to do with their September success. I disagree. I also think that Melbourne with their attacking, free-flowing style makes a good example of a team that has fallen short of the mark in September. They have the talent. They have been there enough times to have overcome any nerves. They have been able to execute their crowd pleasing gameplan in games with less pressure, yet in finals games where the pressure goes up a notch, they haven't cut the mustard.

It's easy to say Lynch and Voss were past their best

Yes, two of their most important players were past their best. Easy to say and very true. Why do you find it so easy to ignore such painfully obvious facts? Because they don't suit your own arguments?

but the facts are they still finished second... still had their vaunted midfield... still had many players at their best.. many were were better.. such a J.Brown, who was at his peak. Aker kicked 44 goals in 2004 more than any other year. They were still at their peak as a team.

They were still a great side. Resilient as ever. One of the best. It takes a lot to keep a champion down. But they weren't in as good a shape as they were previously. Pore over all of your statistical data as much as you like. It won't change the facts. The Lions had slipped ever so slightly and Port were hungry enough to take it away from them.

And I already told you, Jonathan Brown copped a bad knee strain in the 2003 PF. He was shot up with painkillers and would never have played if it was any other game. He went into that year's GF about 20% fit. So don't tell me he was at his peak. Port breathed a huge sigh of relief that they didn't have to contend with the real Jon Brown on the biggest day.

You say they struggled in the finals series. Didn't seem to struggle in their 80-point win over St.Kilda in week one. Did you forget about that? Injuries began to curtail them after that, but so what? They had more injuries in 2003. They just didn't have as much opposition.

In 2003, they tackled an in-form Collingwood and also spanked finals hardened sides Adelaide and Sydney. Do you seriously think these sides were inferior to the newbloods in the 2004 finals, St Kilda and Geelong? The young Saints hadn't played finals in years and were obviously overcome with stagefright in their QF at the Gabba. Did your stats book tell you that? And those Prelim Pussycats had a Grand Final spot there for the taking but were too shy to grab their chance. Ask any Cat fan who was there. Your arguments are ridiculous.

You don't win by 80 points in week one of the finals, after winning 16 games with a percentage of 137% then get a week off, and claim that they were "on the wane."

At the business end of 2004. they weren't as good as when they won their 3 flags. Why would you persist in arguing such a blatantly false position? THEY WERE NOT AT THEIR BEST COME GRAND FINAL DAY. I was there. Port were good, but the Lions ran out of gas in the 2nd half. They were not the same.

Port thrashed them, because they were simply a better side.

Port didn't thrash them. Brisbane led at half time and there was nothing in it deep into the 3rd term. Port kicked a couple just before 3/4 time. Then their fresher legs allowed them to run away in the last qtr to win by 40pts. For 3 quarters, this was a close fought, entertaining Grand Final. Port won because they were better on the day, wanted it more than the 3-peat Lions and were closer to their physical peak than Brisbane.

I'd suggest it is lunacy to suggest the Lions were better than them in 2004. In the other years,... 2002 and 2003, nothing in it.

You are a funny guy the way you try to shift the goal posts mid-argument. To help explain why I think the Lions were better in 2004, I'll use one of your sayings - Their best was better than anyone else's - obviously not on Grand Final day. It was Port's time. But take a gander at their previous clashes over the preceding years. Note how Port's wins were nail-biters that could've gone either way, whereas Brisbane routinely thumped Port.

31/03/2001 - AAMI - Port def Brisbane by 6
21/07/2001 - Gabba - Brisbane def Port by 34
08/09/2001 - Gabba - Brisbane def Port by 32

12/05/2002 - Gabba - Brisbane def Port by 57
31/08/2002 - AAMI - Port def Brisbane by 6
21/09/2002 - Gabba - Brisbane def Port by 56

05/04/2003 - AAMI - Brisbane def Port by 10
26/07/2003 - Gabba - Port def Brisbane by 1

05/06/2004 - Gabba - Brisbane def Port by 37

Those PF losses were to top-2 teams on those teams home ground after they'd had a week off. Port was never going towin at the Gabba, and never going to beat a fresh top-2 Collingowod before 80,000 Pie fans with a week off. The first week f**** d them. In both years. 2004 showed that if they are swithced on they are every bit as good as Brisbane. Despite what you say, they defeated the best, and most experienced (and staistically the most dominant) of Brisbane's 4 Grand Final teams.

There is not much point in trying sway the opinion of someone who is pathologically incapable of admitting they are wrong about anything. But consider the following:
You make excuses for Port's away Preliminary final defeats but don't acknowledge the 2003 and 2004 Lions' efforts in travelling away to win their 2 Preliminary Finals. You use the wisdom of hindsight and throwaway terminology such as "if they were switched on" and "they were never going to win"

I agree that they blew it by losing 2 home Qualifying Finals, but they still had a chance to redeem themselves if they were good enough. Ultimately what f**ked their premiership chances was getting eliminated in two successive Preliminary Finals. Carlton didn't give up in 1999, did they? Why make excuses for Port?

The fact it was Brisbane's 3rd flag in a row as a club is absolutely irrelevant in the discussion. Premierships are individual achievements

That's your jaundiced view and one that isn't shared by most people. We've argued this before and I can't be bothered doing so again with you. The only reason you hold this view is because Essendon's 2 best seasons were 2 one-off years out of the box. You'd be singing a different tune if the Lions and Bombers had've swapped jumpers from 2000-2003 and we both know that, so quit the crap.

As I said to you back then, a premiership isn't won by a single team. 22 teams are chosen during the season. Then 3, maybe 4 more teams are chosen during the finals. The club doesn't then disappear into thin air. The players have a couple weeks break, go on their end of season trip, whatever, then the TEAM reconvenes for pre-season training and continues the process of trying to win a flag.

Your deliberately blinkered attempt to only acknowledge a team's existence for one season is as illogical as any other definition.
The Swans and Eagles that will play this Saturday are as much the same teams as in March of this year as they were in September last year.

As for their 2003 finals campaign... it would have been more impressive if they had won their first final and not done it the hard way.

You show your lack of real football knowledge with this comment. Any team can have one off night, one bad game, an upset loss, etc. But it takes a super side to do what Brisbane did in the 2003 finals. 3 wins in a row against the best, the last two games on the road and with an injury list as long as your arm. To come from behind in Sydney, then wallop the in-form Magpies with more than half their team doped to the eyeballs on painkillers. It was an achievement that maybe will never be repeated.

Brisbane was good but not "that" good.

Yeah maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong. Nah... Think about it, Sheedy's Bombers were being hailed as one of the greatest sides ever during 2001, then Lethal's Lions happened to rise up and make you guys look second rate. And kept it going for nearly four years. Not "that" good. F**king fantastic more like it.

the end results cloud people's judgements

I think you let your judgments get "clouded". What better way to prove which team is better than to see them square off with full lists, barely any injuries and no excuses, at the MCG on the last weekend in September?

Only a fool would ignore that evidence.

 

[andypie]

Everything fell into place for the Pies on GF day ..from the weather to injuries to Lions key players played right into the Pies hands .
But in the end the Lions were just too good a side

agree with you their bm.
best side won, just unfortunate their is another incident to go down in the annals of time for us to think "what if". would have been a dream year, blues bottom , pies top, but i suppose that is asking too much.
i have always rued more the free kick missed to tarrant in the goal square
after being mauled by white. of course then the ball goes up the other end and lynch gets a free and puts the lions back in front.
oh well, atleast it puts a smile on the faces of so many.
****EN STUPID **** OF A GAME

 

[SunKing]

Your wasting your breath Chewy. Dan is a bombers fan and seems to have issues with the Lions.

Based on what I SAW the Lions were streets ahead of Port talent wise 2001-2004. 2001-2003 the best team clearly won,the best team ever in fact. The Lions were also the best team in 2004 as in their best was clearly enough to beat anyone elses best. Remember Jonathon Brown was hobbled in the GF,they had to play a PF away from home when they had earned a home PF and even further got a days less rest! Also throw in some arrogance from Brisbane and Ports hunger and you have a win. And remember Brisbane were in front at half time despite everything stacked against them. With a home PF,equal rest and a fully fit firing Brown the Lions would have got up IMO. They were the better team but injuries(Shaun Hart as well)and events conspired to take them down. EVEN with all this many were predicting a Port thrashing! Port were a very good team in that era but history will show the Lions as the far superior team.

Lions=Best team 2001-2004

 

[melbournemartin]

There was a terrible umpiring mistake this year in round one vs Carlton where the Carlton player, who was shepherding Johnstone, practically threw Trav away. If that was a Melbourne free kick, about 60 metres out, Trav would have passed it to a Melbourne forward and we would have kicked the goal, gained momentum, and won the game. We'd have then maintained the momentum and beaten the Dogs, Crows and every other team to finish top of the ladder and we'd currently be training for Saturday's Grand final while watching Alistair Nicholson shine up his latest Brownlow Medal.

...geez

 

[MarkT]

The 2002 GF was 50-50, and it trasnspired exactly the way "felt" during the week. So you were wrong. The Pies didn't get thrashed.

I was wrong? I never thought or said they would get thrashed. I was commenting on the general perception. I thought we were in with a shot but I was biased and optimistic in that assessment. In the end, yes it was a 50/50 game. The difference though was the predictable gap in class, experience and a ruckman. Same deal the following year.

The same result that would have happened had it been a round 26 H&A game took place. An almost identical tight game to the Pies win over Brisbane in a heated and pressurized game in the middle of the year before a packed house at the Dome that year. Remember it? Obviously not.

Like it was yesterday.

And the stuff about Sydney "playing a game that stacks up in the tighter tougher finals environment." is convenient arguing more than anything. Typical finals myth.

You think it is a myth that finals are different and some styles stack up better? If so all I can say is I disagree and so do most coaches.

Of their last 6 finals games, 4 have been decided by less than a goal, one of which they lost, another (versus geelong) was extremely fortuante. Their win over the Dockers was the first truly convincing finals win they've had in the last two years.

The whole point is that their games is tight and the results aren’t blowouts but they get over the line. The Freo win was different because they played a team new to the occasion IMO. A lot like the Eagles blowout of the Dog’s. While they are a better side, the occasion and age of the Dog’s midfield were also contributing factors. That comes back to finals being physically and mentally different to H&A matches.

They are a good H&A side and a good finals side. The rules don't change when Setptemebr stars - all that happens is that more is at stake. The teams are still the same and still play to win. I'm sick of you arguments based on convenience which I always prove are rubbish. Don't you get tired of it?

You always prove what? Cut back the arrogance and self importance and crank up the substance please.

 

[skilts]

Hmm, Leigh reckons Collingwood should have won the premiership in 2002? My question would be why just 2002? In what way does that GF differ from those in 1955, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 2003? According to Collingwood supporters, the Pies should have won those as well. I think you'll also find that Collingwood supporters believe they were robbed in each of these GFs. I'm led to believe Leigh is working on an invention which will slice bread.

 

[Pemby]

Collingwood would have been up by 8 pts after Fraser's goal. Doesn't change anything. they won by 9 pts. i would have loved the pies to win but even if rocca's goal counted the lions would have won by 1 point

 

[exe ex machina]

All these over-analyses! Geez.

All Leigh basically meant was that Cwood's best chance to win, of the duo they lost against Brisbane, was the 2002 GF. That is all. Given the end result was 9 pts, the game was tug-o-war all the way, the wet helping, a few tight decisions, etc.

The "should have" part of his quote is the touchy part. Just badly worded.

 

[HorseHead]

...i have always rued more the free kick missed to tarrant in the goal square after being mauled by white. of course then the ball goes up the other end and lynch gets a free and puts the lions back in front.

Exactly. That was much more significant than Rocca's "goal", IMO.

 

[HorseHead]

...but history will show the Lions as the far superior team.

Lions=Best team 2001-2004

The Lions sides of that period were the best football sides I've ever seen, hands down. Nobody else comes close.

 

[mrbehemoth]

Collingwood would have been up by 8 pts after Fraser's goal. Doesn't change anything. they won by 9 pts. i would have loved the pies to win but even if rocca's goal counted the lions would have won by 1 point

Even that's not true, because the whole dynamic would have changed; the ball goes back to the centre instead of being kicked out.

If Rocca kicks it, maybe the Pies get on a roll and win by 30. Maybe the Lions get a quick break out of the centre, reply within ten seconds, and THEY go on to win by thirty with the momentum gained from the centre break.

You can't ever say for sure what difference one decision or one kick would have made, unless it's the last of the game.

 

[HorseHead]

Hmm, Leigh reckons Collingwood should have won the premiership in 2002? My question would be why just 2002? In what way does that GF differ from those in 1955, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1966, 1970, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 2003? According to Collingwood supporters, the Pies should have won those as well. I think you'll also find that Collingwood supporters believe they were robbed in each of these GFs.

Bollocks. I don't think any Collingwood supporter would say we were "robbed" in 1955-6. The Melbourne sides of that era were amongst the most dominant in the history of the league. The scoreline for those two grand finals shows Melbourne won very comfortably. We were fortunate to pinch one off them in 1958, a win we managed to achive through physical harassment. Melbourne flogged us in 1960, hell-bent on revenge for the boilover of 1958.

We were unlucky not to win in 1964 and 1966. We lost to Melbourne by four points after they flogged us by 89 points in the Second Semi that year. 1966: St.Kilda held a lead of 20-odd points early in the last quarter of the '66 grand final. We weren't "robbed", just unlucky.

The loss in 1970 was orchestrated by history's greatest monster, Ron Barassi, a man that hates Collingwood with every fibre in his body. I'd say this is the only one in which we probably were "robbed" in a sense.

1977-81: we just weren't good enough, bottom line. Lucky to even make it through to most of those grand finals with little more than a team of mostly honest battlers.

2003: For some reason the media seemed to consider us favourites, but I didn't think we had a hope in hell of winning, particularly without Anthony Rocca. The thing people seem to forget is that the Lions absolutely dominated Collingwood from around 1997 onwards. We played the Lions at the MCG in (roughly) round 19 that year and they absolutely flogged us (after beating us earlier in the year at the Gabba). Yes, we snuck home in the Qualifying final against them by 10 points, but I was never confident of winning that game. I still remember the feeling of dread I had as I watched the Lions strangle the Swans in the last quarter of the Preliminary Final that year.

 

[HorseHead]

Hawthorn won 5 flags in 10 years during the 80's early 90's.... Melbourne won 5 flags in 6 years in the 50's... and we won 4 premierships in a row 1927-30

Brisbane have 3 asterix's next to their flags... no where near it

Despite the obvious advantages they had re: the salary cap, I'm talking purely about the on-field personnel they had and how those personnel performed during that period. How they got those personnel doesn't matter, if you follow me. Looking purely at their on-field performances, they are the best football side/s I've ever seen in action.

 

[HorseHead]

They never even won the minor premiership in any year... the 3 dynasties of Hawthorn, Melbourne and Collingwood smash the AFL sponsored effort from the Lions

True, but they performed when it really counted.

 

[Grimreepah]

Please take your sore loser comments to the Collingwood board

Cheers

 

[HorseHead]

Yeah but their record doesn't compare to the other 3... and even worse they needed compensations to achieve it

I don't know how old you are, but I didn't see the Collingwood sides of the 1920s or the Melbourne sides of the 1950s kick a footy (I did, however, see the Hawthorn sides of the 1980s in action).

What I originally said was that Brisbane were the best side I've ever seen in action. I stand by that. Certain people tend to read too much into relatively unimportant statisitcs, such as how many home and away games they won, where they finished at the end of the home and away season and so on. Port Adelaide have a better record than Brisbane in that regard during 2002-3, but we all know who went on to win the flag.

(I understand where you're coming from re: the salary cap advantages, but looking at it objectively from a purely footballing point of view, Brisbane are the best I've seen.)

 

[HorseHead]

If you saw Hawthorn... then Brisbane are not the best you've seen because Brisbane did not win 5 premierships... and as far as relatively unimportant stats go.... thats a pretty big one

No doubt Hawthorn had some good sides during the 1980s (candidate for understatement of the year), but if we could build a time machine and match them up head to head, I think Brisbane would win comfortably. All a matter of opinion, of course.

 

[exe ex machina]

I'm with Pies07 on this. Hawthorn circa 80's would by consensus vote be the greatest team of all time in the VFL/AFL.

We can argue whether Brisbane or Hawthorn would have beaten the other, but a good way to do that is by looking at the playing list of each team. The champion names of Hawthorn are more championed than those of Brisbane.

A lot of those Hawks players went on to become elite coaches as well.