I think you'd have to say so, purely on their consistency and effectiveness. None of those four are showboaters or typical highlight reel players, just team-oriented winners sticking to their system. Great example of a core to attach incoming players to.

Best thing Perth did was to let Bevo Go, and get Gleeson to coach going for his 3 championship.

For me this current era is the better one. More GFs, more championships, up the top for a longer period of time (92 and 94 were poor seasons) The only downpoint for me is that there are only 8 teams playing. Back then there were 14 and Melbourne/SE Melbourne were also just as dominant. So winning a title back then was a huge achievement let alone doing it 3 times.

Winning one now is also huge, but with only 8 teams, lessens it a bit. Still, id go with this era purely on volume of consistency and number of titles won and GFs played.

Ill bite - ive been following since 91. This era has been more successful between the two eras. I loved the 90s but the standard is better now, quality of teams are better now. No easy beats.

Yes more teams to go through to win back then, and a great era for the club, but this era is comparable, if not better. Its a good debate.

Hey Kobe, don't forget the 1993 Grand Final as well. Try as I might, I am unable to.

Good discussion. I think what's really impressive about the current era is they have a 64% winning percentage despite there not being many real easybeat teams over that period.

What's impressive about the early era is it really went from 87-03, with 11 SF appearances, two lost GFs and four titles, and they stayed up the top through the league going way up in standard from the late 90s.

The current crop doesn't even compare to the 90's era team.

With a core group consisting of Grace, Crawford, Vlahov and Fisher who are all Hall of Famers that alone should end the discussion.

Yes the current team are comparable due to their success. But the league in the 90's was more competitive in my opinion and they played a more entertaining style

The Grace/Fisher/Vlahov/Crawford era was undoubtedly better

More teams an more talent back then too

The flat-out talent level across the teams is far higher now than in 1993 when the NBL was emerging from a semi-pro league. Have a chat to Joey Wright about how much the standard has improved since when he played.

That can't be factored into the comparison though, the Wildcats of each era could only play against whatever oppo was put in front of them.

IMO, the NBL didn't become a high-quality league across the board until the mid-late 90s when the number of teams dropped and players from the participation boom started to reach adult age.

Absolutely, 100% the best

So good they're near certainties for the title. It's Perth then daylight. Unbeatable!

(Just putting the mozz on them)

The difference is that back then, our stable core were also our best players.
In the recent grand final era most of our top players have been imports, so it's not really comparing apples with apples.

Out of interest, 1993 was a 14-team comp, and the top 28 local scorers or average two per team were:

Gaze
Ronaldson
Vlahov
Ninnis
Withers
Heal
Hubbard
Bradkte
Reidy
Borner
Johnson
Svaldenis
Reece
Lucas
McKay
Goodwin
Close
Hill
Parkinson
Pearce
Blades
Corkeron
Stewart
Smyth
Keogh
Armfield
Cottrell
Steele

This year in an eight-team comp the top 16 local scorers or average two per team were:

Newley
Penney
Goulding
Lisch
Johnson
Sobey
Cadee
Bairstow
Kickert
Creek
Abercrombie
Webster
Ogilvy
Gliddon
Andersen
Jawai

* Loggins should be in that 93 list, he was an Aussie by then.

Best thing Perth did was to let Bevo Go, and get Gleeson to coach going for his 3 championship.

Grace Fisher Vlahov Crawford and co. coached by Dpc Hurley were the greatest. More depth and teams to gp through back then as well.

Hey Kobe, don't forget the 1993 Grand Final as well. Try as I might, I am unable to.

What's impressive about the early era is it really went from 87-03, with 11 SF appearances, two lost GFs and four titles, and they stayed up the top through the league going way up in standard from the late 90s.

the league in the 90's was more competitive in my opinion

The difference is that back then, our stable core were also our best players.
In the recent grand final era most of our top players have been imports, so it's not really comparing apples with apples.

Once Grace and Fisher naturalised, their imports were role players.

Yep the 90s can't be beat. 2000 championship was 1999-2000 season. Four in ONE decade.

Can you name any?

That's not comparable.

We came within two Braswell fluke shots of sweeping the 2011 Breakers team even without Redhage, and were better than the 2013 team throughout the regular season.

Regardless, even without those the 2010-2020 team has two more grand final appearances and two fewer championships than the 1990-2000 team, with three seasons still to go.

*and this season's grand final

From 1990-2000, nine different clubs played in grand finals and five different clubs won championships. Pick any seven consecutive years in that period and at least four different clubs won championships.

In the 2010-2016 period, five clubs have played in championships and two clubs have won championships.

Regardless of the relative standards of the NBL between the two eras, winning championships was harder in the 1990s. Part of the reason is that winning championships is about beating the the top few teams, not the scrubs that all the top teams beat - then and now.

In the 2010-2016 era there's been a consistent gap between the top 5/6 teams and the rest. Every season bar this one has seen the top four as a race in 5 or 6, just like it was in the 1990s.

The top 4/5 teams in the 1990s usually contained a Boomer or ex-Boomer or two (major tournament standard, not Oceania champs), one or two naturalised imports and a couple of star imports. While the standard at the bottom of the NBL is higher now than then, I don't think the standard at the top level of NBL is higher now than then. I think the coaching and training are better now and in-game tactics are better, and better executed as a consequence. But that's not the question.

Given all of that, I'd take the 1990s Perth core over the 2010-2016 core.

"I think the coaching and training are better now and in-game tactics are better, and better executed as a consequence. But that's not the question."

Spot on. The 80s/90s team could only play in the league they were in at the time.

It's an interesting side discussion though. In sports that are timed (aths, swimming etc) everyone knows the standard improves over time.

Team sports are exactly the same, as those involved over long periods like D-Mac and Joey Wright know, but there isn't the definitive proof like a 100m time so it leaves it open to disussion, which is much more interesting really!

"The top 4/5 teams in the 1990s usually contained a Boomer or ex-Boomer or two (major tournament standard, not Oceania champs), one or two naturalised imports and a couple of star imports."

Cairns - Jawai, Wortho + three imports
Perth - Martin, Redhage + three imports
NZ - Penney, Abercrombie, Vukona etc + three imports
Melbourne - Goulding, Andersen + three imports
Brisbane - Bairstow, Gibson + two imports
Sydney - Newley, Lisch, Maric + two/three imports

The talent today in pretty much every team is as good as the best teams in the early 90s (or any other period), plus the benches are deeper, the sports science, training, scouting, strategy and defence advanced by two decades.

If you were to compare the late 90s, early 2000s to today for standard I would agree, but the Australian talent before that period was very shallow due to extremely low participation levels.

I think the earlier core is better. BUT that is because that core was generally the teams top 4 players. There was also not a huge gap between any of those 4.

The later years core was arguably at worst only 2 of the top 4 players in the team and maybe 3 before age caught up with Redhage. The gap between them and Ennis, Prather and Cotton(possibly as well) was also larger.

I think to compare you need to look at Grace/Fisher/Crawford/Vlahov Vs the Martin/Redhage/Knight/Ennis or Martin/Knight/Prather/Cotton for example.......but then that's not a core over time is it...

That's a good distinction FTSOS. Interestingly, Grace was the only Cat to be a major player in four championships, something Martin will match if they win this year.

Current Wildcats in each championship:

2010 - 3
2014 - 5
2016 - 7

1995 Wildcats in each championship/GF:

1987 - 1
1990 - 3
1991 - 4

Interestingly, the current group has kept more of a core together.

No, I would put him as a role player.

I think another way to look at this might be to consider the ultimate record of the players?

Grace - 482 games
Crawford - 371 (504)
Fisher - 247 (417)
Vlahov - 349
Torrance - 253 (305)

That pretty impressive. Only Redhage is in the same company, with Martin closing in

And another thread gone off the rails

I think the earlier core is better. BUT that is because that core was generally the teams top 4 players.

Hv a look at some of the Wildats players who have been on court for the wildcats in recent championships hahahaha! Comical!

please take note the original poster of this topic has stated that Kobe was better than Jordan.

Having thought about it, if Perth beats the Hawks in the GF this era will unquestionably be the Wildcats' greatest. That would make six GFs and four titles in eight years. That's remarkable.