TOP 5 OF 2000'S

[locky801]

If you'd told me at the end of 2003 (our worst ever and we were almost closed down) that most people would rate North the 4th best side of the decade I would have had you committed to an asylum! How bad are the 5 clubs below them going?

well really Wedgie we only had one way to go I spose and that was up, probably all thanks to a leisure walk up Main North Road

[bayman]

I'll vote next year when the 00s actually finish...

also I hope we've actually might justify a spot in the top five.....

am bays, surely 2000-2009 is the first decade of this century ?

as for the top 5 well obviously cd,wwt & sturt are miles in front of the rest but for 4th & 5th is anyones guess

[spell_check]

What about considering this into the equation - matches against the best:
Team P W L D %
Eagles 34 10 24 0 29.4
Norwood 25 7 18 0 28.0
Sturt 30 8 22 0 26.7
Port 27 7 20 0 25.9
Glenelg 28 4 23 1 14.3
North 28 4 24 0 14.3
South 25 3 22 0 12.0
West 27 3 24 0 11.1

And just the minor round:
Team P W L D %
Eagles 25 9 16 0 36.0
Norwood 25 7 18 0 28.0
Sturt 25 7 18 0 28.0
Port 25 7 18 0 28.0
Glenelg 25 4 20 1 16.0
North 25 4 21 0 16.0
South 25 3 22 0 12.0
West 25 3 22 0 12.0

[spell_check]

Record during 2000-2009
Team P W L D %
Central 224 177 46 1 79.0
Eagles 227 145 80 2 63.9
Sturt 220 126 94 0 57.3
Port 210 98 110 2 46.7
Norwood 208 96 110 2 46.2
North 212 91 117 4 42.9
Glenelg 207 82 121 4 39.6
West 206 70 135 1 34.0
South 202 63 135 4 31.2

[CoverKing]

Record during 2000-2009
Team P W L D %
Central 224 177 46 1 79.0
Eagles 227 145 80 2 63.9
Sturt 220 126 94 0 57.3
Port 210 98 110 2 46.7
Norwood 208 96 110 2 46.2
North 212 91 117 4 42.9
Glenelg 207 82 121 4 39.6
South 202 63 135 4 31.2

Westies didnt play at all in this decade??

[spell_check]

Record during 2000-2009
Team P W L D %
Central 224 177 46 1 79.0
Eagles 227 145 80 2 63.9
Sturt 220 126 94 0 57.3
Port 210 98 110 2 46.7
Norwood 208 96 110 2 46.2
North 212 91 117 4 42.9
Glenelg 207 82 121 4 39.6
South 202 63 135 4 31.2

Westies didnt play at all in this decade??

They did now.

[cd]

just for fun - for all the mathematicans!!!

Does the decade under consideration start at 2001 - 1 being the first and finish in 2010 (like counting from 1 to 10)
or is it
2000 to 2009 ( that means year zero is one and 9 is the tenth year)

Remember when the AFL celebrated the 100th season of games but the years showed 99 as they went like 1900 to 1999 was 100 seasons.

Col D

[Voice]

This is a silly debate. Didn't the 80's decade go from 80 to 89, 90's decade went from 90 to 99 so it's pretty logical that this decade goes from 00 to 09

[Hondo]

This is a silly debate. Didn't the 80's decade go from 80 to 89, 90's decade went from 90 to 99 so it's pretty logical that this decade goes from 00 to 09

Technically no

The first ever decade was year 1 - year 10. Second year 11 - year 20 and so on. There's no such thing as a year zero.

This is the same as the new millenium which technically started 1 Jan 2001 and runs 2001-3000.

In my mind the "official" decade runs 2001-2010. However, the popular terms like the 80s, etc imply 1980-89 and therefore 2000-2009.

I guess a decade is any 10 year period you choose.

I'd be interested in the opinions of Spelly, Psuedo and Ecky on this ... or anyone really.

[spell_check]

That's true hondo, but if you say the 1990s, 2000 does not come to mind because there is no "90" in 2000.

[Hondo]

Yes, that's the problem. It seems odd to say the decade was 1991-2000 even though I feel it's technically right.

Maybe it doesn't really matter?

I was debating this with someone on another forum and they pulled out the online dictionary definiton of "decade" being any consecutive 10 year period which didn't really answer the question. I didn't feel it was that terribly important to settle so that's where we left it.

The "noughties" would be considered to be 2000-2009.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

That's true hondo, but if you say the 1990s, 2000 does not come to mind because there is no "90" in 2000.

To consider the year 2000 as part of the 90's, be it factually correct or not, is ridiculous...

[Hondo]

That's true hondo, but if you say the 1990s, 2000 does not come to mind because there is no "90" in 2000.

To consider the year 2000 as part of the 90's, be it factually correct or not, is ridiculous...

The "90s" and the official/technical decade are 2 different things to me

But maybe I am just being pedantic

Mods - any chance of cutting the last few posts out into a new topic in the general discussion forum?

[doggies4eva]

That's true hondo, but if you say the 1990s, 2000 does not come to mind because there is no "90" in 2000.

To consider the year 2000 as part of the 90's, be it factually correct or not, is ridiculous...

The "90s" and the official/technical decade are 2 different things to me

But maybe I am just being pedantic

Mods - any chance of cutting the last few posts out into a new topic in the general discussion forum?

Please don't. You'll get Centurion going and there will be no end to it.