Dogs first team to pass 100 wins this century

[Nathan B]

Do people really think the Dogs had the best team on paper during '02?

I think it's quite clear that they didn't. Just look at all the rep players in the Brisbane, Newcastle, and Eels sides.

The Dogs cheated big time, and we deserved to be booted out of the '02 comp. But their sin was to overpay players - did you guys catch the figures Corey Hughes was apparently on?!?! So, IMO anyway, the 17 match streak and stats like the ones raised in this thread are all above board and cant be discounted just because players were earning more than they deserved.

Being overpaid certainly doesn't make you play better. The 17 match streak was a great run by a very good, but not great team on paper.


(But, once again, it's against the rules and we deserved the punishment we got.)

 

[greenos]

Do people really think the Dogs had the best team on paper during '02?

I think it's quite clear that they didn't. Just look at all the rep players in the Brisbane, Newcastle, and Eels sides.

The Dogs cheated big time, and we deserved to be booted out of the '02 comp. But their sin was to overpay players - did you guys catch the figures Corey Hughes was apparently on?!?! So, IMO anyway, the 17 match streak and stats like the ones raised in this thread are all above board and cant be discounted just because players were earning more than they deserved.

Being overpaid certainly doesn't make you play better. The 17 match streak was a great run by a very good, but not great team on paper.


(But, once again, it's against the rules and we deserved the punishment we got.)

Hahaha

 

[Nathan B]

Hahaha

Number 357 for people who make ridiculous one-line comments and couldn't construct an argument to save their life....

Take your ticket please and stand in line!

 

[Stewie Griffin]

i say screw the doggies and go the broncs!!;-)
no other team has been so consistent to not miss the finals in 15 years... David Middleton said that the broncos were the most successful team of the modern era!! ok sure we slump near the end.. but that just means we were firing early and mid season!!! oh yeah!!! can you feel that!! eh? Captain I gotta cheat to win?!! lolz~!

 

[mattyg]

i left it out because TECHNICALLY a century/decade whatever starts in the year ending with 1. So 2001 was the first year of this century. The thread is about this century isn't it? And it shows that we are the best team this century you idiots. I'll happily accept that there is a better team than us if either Broncos or Knights win this years comp, as that would make them have two premierships in the 00's.

You said it yourself MX. We have the best win ratio. Isn't that what matters?

And as for making 4 grand finals...I'd rather not make them if i were to lose 3 of them :lol:

 

[Stewie Griffin]

And as for making 4 grand finals...I'd rather not make them if i were to lose 3 of them :lol:

omg that's just so wrong... so the grand final is only meaningful to the winner?? the team that gets there doesn't mean anything??

Also if you were actually in the GF, it means that you were good enough to get there, luck and all things aside. (chance favours the prepared mind)
If you dont make it, it means that you werent good enough even to be contenders... if you cant contend with the good teams why play?? I'd rather go in 100 GF and win 1 rather than going into none!!

 

[mattyg]

omg that's just so wrong... so the grand final is only meaningful to the winner?? the team that gets there doesn't mean anything??

Also if you were actually in the GF, it means that you were good enough to get there, luck and all things aside. (chance favours the prepared mind)
If you dont make it, it means that you werent good enough even to be contenders... if you cant contend with the good teams why play?? I'd rather go in 100 GF and win 1 rather than going into none!!

According to the record books, yes.

 

[gregstar]

technically my *rse.

the year 2000 was celebrated because it was the START of the new millenium. you don't start at 1 you start at nought. are you saying that the 80's started in 81? or the '90's in '91? by your logic, the dogs therefore only won 3 titles in the 80's, meaning parra were the best team of that decade.

the roosters won the same amount of titles as the dogs, but they played in another 3 deciders & more finals fixtures. are you suggesting that the roosters making it to the last game 4 years out of 5 compared to your once doesn't make them more successful?

 

[gregstar]

According to the record books, yes.

so the '98 grand final means nothing to dogs supporters?

 

[Stewie Griffin]

According to the record books, yes.

to the fans of the game, and the game only means anything because of the fans, just being in the finals mean something... it means you pride in your supporting colours... im sure if the bulldogs were involved in 3 GF recently, like the roosters and won only 1, they'd be bragging about it!! im sure... and dont give me the "i'd rather not be there if we don't win" crap because it just means you don't have faith in your team... which is kinda sad considering its the mighty bulldogs which you speak so highly of...

 

[mattyg]

to the fans of the game, and the game only means anything because of the fans, just being in the finals mean something... it means you pride in your supporting colours... im sure if the bulldogs were involved in 3 GF recently, like the roosters and won only 1, they'd be bragging about it!! im sure... and dont give me the "i'd rather not be there if we don't win" crap because it just means you don't have faith in your team... which is kinda sad considering its the mighty bulldogs which you speak so highly of...

if i didn't have faith in my team i wouldn't have went to the Bulldogs v Tigers game last year AFTER getting smashed 56-4 the week before. And i certaintly wouldn't think we can still win the premiership despite a slight drop in form. I am just saying its hard to take a grand final loss, and i'd rather not lose one again. It was easier to take us missing the 8 last year than losing the prelim in 2003. God knows how bad it would feel to lose the grand final.

 

[Chachi]

no technicalities about it.

2000 is part of this decade / century.

even including '00, the dogs have won more than any other team but their winning percentage dips. i just don't understand why it's not included.

Ahh, I get it now...you said it, so it must be true...and I thought the gregorian calendar was named after Pope Gregory XIII, and all along it was really named after you. :roll:

Amazing.

Anyhoo, whatever way you look at it the stats are clearly irrelevant. The Dogs cheated their way to 20 of those wins so it's just another bullsh!t number.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

if i didn't have faith in my team i wouldn't have went to the Bulldogs v Tigers game last year AFTER getting smashed 56-4 the week before. And i certaintly wouldn't think we can still win the premiership despite a slight drop in form. I am just saying its hard to take a grand final loss, and i'd rather not lose one again. It was easier to take us missing the 8 last year than losing the prelim in 2003. God knows how bad it would feel to lose the grand final.

bah~~ um... sorry... wouldnt know... hahahahaha.... 5 out of 5's a pretty good record!!! so sweet yet so harsh... lolz :lol:

i apologize for making a nuisance of myself

 

[gregstar]

Ahh, I get it now...you said it, so it must be true...and I thought the gregorian calendar was named after Pope Gregory XIII, and all along it was really named after you.

Amazing.

so what were we celebrating in the year 2000 chachi?

 

[Stewie Griffin]

so what were we celebrating in the year 2000 chachi?

the year of the BRONCOS!!!

 

[tbone10]

Apologies tbone, the list was incomplete.

So far this century (2001-2006)

Dogs 101 wins, 65.2% winning percentage
Roosters 91, 58.0%
Broncos 89, 57.1%
Storm 84, 55.3%
Knights 82, 53.9%
Eels 81, 53.3%
Daylight
Manly 42, 43.3%



So far in NRL history (1998-2006)

Dogs 144 wins, 61.0% winning percentage
Broncos 144, 60.5%
Roosters 143, 59.6%
Storm 135, 57.7%
Eels 134, 57.3%
Knights 130, 56.3%
Daylight
Manly 64, 43.8%

Gee thats not a bad effort considering Manly didn't exist for 3 of those years. But even if Manly were at top of the list i'd still say big f**king deal

 

[OVP]

Oh f**k off :arrow:

Enjoy the off season dickhead.

Oh how apt ... a Dogs fan sweeping things under the carpet AGAIN !!

101 - 20 = 81

 

[caylo]

The new centry does actually start in 2001, its tech incorrect to call 2000 the new millenium. If your talking about consistancy, the broncos, dogs and rosters have been the most consistant teams... most sucessful is split between the knights, roos, dogs, penrith and tigers... because at the end of the day GF is all that counts

 

[DJ1]

Holy crap this threads gone off track.

This is not saying that the Dogs are the team of the decade / century simply that they are the first to pass 100 wins. If you were to create an award for the most dominant team of the modern era, it would no doubt go to the Broncos. Since '88 306 wins, 65.0% winning percentage.

This century began in 2001.

The 1st century was from 1-100
The 2nd century was from 101-200
......
The 20th century was from 1901-2000
The 21st century is from 2001-2100

There was no year zero and the first century cannot have only 99 years (as that doesn't make a "century"). A millenium works the same way. i.e.1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000.

The Northern Eagles stats "do not" get added to Manlys in exactly the same way that the NRL report it.

 

[DJ1]

Oh how apt ... a Dogs fan sweeping things under the carpet AGAIN !!

101 - 20 = 81

So do we exclude the three years of Rooster stats during the backdoor payments to Souths Juniors for Craig Wing or for Morley's girlfriends free Ford?