Swans 1996 vs Swans 2006

[NMWBloods]

I just think it is misleading to compare fitness across eras except by including a relativity against other sides in the competition at the time.

So, footballers in 2006 are fitter and stronger than they were in the 1930s, but does that mean that sides now are much better than in the 1930s? I don't think so.

However, if the argument that the Swans of 2006 are fit relative to other teams in the competition in the same era, whereas the 1996 side does not have that attribute, then I think that is a reasonable argument.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I just think it is misleading to compare fitness across eras except by including a relativity against other sides in the competition at the time.

So, footballers in 2006 are fitter and stronger than they were in the 1930s, but does that mean that sides now are much better than in the 1930s? I don't think so.

However, if the argument that the Swans of 2006 are fit relative to other teams in the competition in the same era, whereas the 1996 side does not have that attribute, then I think that is a reasonable argument.

And very few modern players have a beer or two before the game.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by liz
I suspect footballers on average are fitter and stronger than they were even ten years ago. So the 2006 outfit has a headstart and it's hard to compensate for that. Overall I think the 2006 team has more strong, match hardened bodies and they have learned what it takes to play pressure football. So long as Lockett's supply was held, I think 2006 would win quite comfortably.

Agree with you Liz.

I think when comparing across eras you need to take this factor out.

I dont agree with you NMW,fitness is a big thing.I think the Lions at there best and fittest could have beaten ANY team in VFL/AFL history.IMHO.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I just think it is misleading to compare fitness across eras except by including a relativity against other sides in the competition at the time.

So, footballers in 2006 are fitter and stronger than they were in the 1930s, but does that mean that sides now are much better than in the 1930s? I don't think so.

However, if the argument that the Swans of 2006 are fit relative to other teams in the competition in the same era, whereas the 1996 side does not have that attribute, then I think that is a reasonable argument.

If you're debating which of the 2006 or 1996 team is better, then I think you have to take into account their context, and you can maybe discount the relatively better fitness of the 2006 version. But if you're thinking about how the two teams might go head to head, it is impossible to discount the fitness factor in determining which team would win more match-ups.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
If you're debating which of the 2006 or 1996 team is better, then I think you have to take into account their context, and you can maybe discount the relatively better fitness of the 2006 version. But if you're thinking about how the two teams might go head to head, it is impossible to discount the fitness factor in determining which team would win more match-ups.

True, but that sort of makes head-to-head comparison rather meaningless.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swantastic
Agree with you Liz.
I dont agree with you NMW,fitness is a big thing.I think the Lions at there best and fittest could have beaten ANY team in VFL/AFL history.IMHO.

But this is part of my point. Modern footballers are fitter and stronger than previously, which is hardly surprising when considering it is their full-time job and the amount of time and technology devoted to it.

How can you compare a guy who just football for a living to a guy who is a milkman and in his spare time after work and on Saturday plays football and then heads down to the pub afterwards?

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
True, but that sort of makes head-to-head comparison rather meaningless.

It's not meant to be meaningful. It's meant to be a bit of mindless fun.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
But this is part of my point. Modern footballers are fitter and stronger than previously, which is hardly surprising when considering it is their full-time job and the amount of time and technology devoted to it.

How can you compare a guy who just football for a living to a guy who is a milkman and in his spare time after work and on Saturday plays football and then heads down to the pub afterwards?

If what you say is correct ,then whats the point of this post ,why waste our time with a stupid question then.Well heres a question for you,if the team of 96 were as fit and did as much training would they beat the team of 05/06.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think when comparing across eras you need to take this factor out.

I agree with this.

If you take each player and compare how they rate to their contemporaries before comparing them across eras - makes it a little fairer.

In 200 years time the person who wins the 100m at the Olympics could do it in 7 seconds.....does that mean that a footaller today who does it in 10.5 seconds is a tortoise???

[cmon]

96 V 06 Lineup

a quik line up i put together. note 1 extra interchange for 06 team

obrien lockett lewis
richards barry matthews

grant mooney oloughlin
kennelly c bolton roberts-thompson

kickett dyson goodes
fosdike ablet luff

maxfield heuskes roos
schneider oloughlin okeefe

garlick dunkley seymour
buchanan hall davis

followers
stafford cresswell kelly
jolly kirk j bolton

bench
bayes chapman mcpherson
doyle malceski dempster mcveigh

when doing this i realised how much talent is in both teams. also cool remembering all the players from back in 96. my key match up is LRT getting a bath from MOL.

[liz]

Re: 96 V 06 Lineup

Originally posted by cmon
my key match up is LRT getting a bath from MOL.

Which is why it would never happen. Swap B2 onto O'Loughlin and put LRT on Mooney. Much better match-ups from the 2006 team's POV.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
It's not meant to be meaningful. It's meant to be a bit of mindless fun.

I'm all for mindless fun - half of my life is based on it!!

Still, I think when comparing teams I wouldn't give too much credit for an extra fit/strong team unless they are regarded that way relative to their contemporaries.

For the Swans '06 I think there is an element of that.

[Bloody Hell]

Re: 96 V 06 Lineup

Originally posted by cmon
obrien lockett lewis
richards barry matthews

grant mooney oloughlin
kennelly c bolton roberts-thompson

kickett dyson goodes
fosdike ablet luff

maxfield heuskes roos
schneider oloughlin okeefe

garlick dunkley seymour
buchanan hall davis

Don't think O'Brien and Richards would work too well - Should give Teddy a go on Plugger! I don't think Barry would start...and would probably be the 3rd or 4th change (If it came to that - which it would).

Don't think Dunks would play on Hall either....Hall works too hard. Which makes matching up Hall and O'Keefe difficult with the 96 team.

[cmon]

also worth to note
2 brownlows a peace to either team. kel and lockett V goodes X2.

what about goodes/luff match up? can you find a better one to help the 96 team out.

also i forgot to put my pick in...... 96 is a better older more experienced side on paper, however those bloods of 06 are awesome... 96 by 8 points

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: 96 V 06 Lineup

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
Don't think Dunks would play on Hall either....Hall works too hard.

I definitely think Dunkley would be in Hall. Dunkley used to be fairly mobile back then.