Historical VFL statistics.

[Rosstickle]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

"Conspiracy theory" is too harsh a term. My opinion is based on what I see happening in the future, not in the past. This is the peoples game and the people will dictate how it's history is viewed, not some random, ever changing board.

Wait a minute, I thought you just said the AFL only celebrated their centenary in 1996 to keep everyone happy. When in fact that's wrong. Now you're saying it's your opinion is based on what you see happening.

So far in this thread most people in this thread have stated that they value history. The minority have said they don't value it.

History stays.


And regardless of what the people think their needs to be a good reason for valuing the 1990 flag over the 89 flag. And there isn't.

It's the the whingers from interstate or weaker clubs that want to forget history to make themselves look better. If you forget the VFL's history all of a sudden North are the second greatest team ever. Not the weak spoon gathering team they've been for most of their history.

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by Rosstickle

Wait a minute, I thought you just said the AFL only celebrated their centenary in 1996 to keep everyone happy. When in fact that's wrong. Now you're saying it's your opinion is based on what you see happening.

Christ, I was so hoping that you were intelligent.

For the third time, what the AFL did in 1996 was relative to1996.

The view of the masses is shifting towards a stand alone AFL model.

What was relevant in 1996, will not be relevant in 2096.

Originally Posted by Rosstickle

So far in this thread most people in this thread have stated that they value history. The minority have said they don't value it.

History stays..

This thread is far from concluded, and remember, you were the one stating it should be closed.

Do you think that doing that would freeze history where you think it belongs?

Originally Posted by Rosstickle

And regardless of what the people think their needs to be a good reason for valuing the 1990 flag over the 89 flag. And there isn't.

Of course there isn't. North 1918 VFA flag is just as important to me as a Richmond supporters 1969 VFL flag. From a personal perspective there is no difference.

Originally Posted by Rosstickle

It's the the whingers from interstate or weaker clubs that want to forget history to make themselves look better. If you forget the VFL's history all of a sudden North are the second greatest team ever. Not the weak spoon gathering team they've been for most of their history.

You are being far too emotional and impractical about this subject.

I could just as easily conclude that Richmond has no AFL history.

If your scenario is really the case then the interstate and weaker clubs are in the majority and the AFL/VFL historical split is inevitable.

[Herne Hill Hammer]

[quote=Rosstickle;16529791]Wait a minute, I thought you just said the AFL only celebrated their centenary in 1996 to keep everyone happy. When in fact that's wrong. Now you're saying it's your opinion is based on what you see happening.

So far in this thread most people in this thread have stated that they value history. The minority have said they don't value it.

History stays.


And regardless of what the people think their needs to be a good reason for valuing the 1990 flag over the 89 flag. And there isn't.

It's the the whingers from interstate or weaker clubs that want to forget history to make themselves look better. If you forget the VFL's history all of a sudden North are the second greatest team ever. Not the weak spoon gathering team they've been for most of their history.[/quote]

This is where you're wrong. I'm 41 and was born in Geelong and have followed them all of my life.
We've been having this argument in another thread. I'm with Wally on this one.
It's the AFL. Yes it was a great achievement winning a premiership in a suburban Victorian league but there's is no way know you can equate that with a fully fledged AFL.
AFL premierships are infinitely more difficult to win and more prestigious in my opinion. There's travel, salary caps, drafting and for the non Victorian clubs there have been ordinary finals fixturing. When the Weagles won their first in '92 it was IMO worth considerably more than any VFL flag that had gone before it. Brisbane's 3peat from '01 to '03 would be that far superior to Collingwood's 4 in a row it's not funny.
My argument isn't about the improvement in standards, coaching, facilities etc. that's a natural pregression of all sports. My argument is that with what I have already mentioned, the draft etc makes it so much tougher.
When clubs set up the commission that changed everything for me. It took it from a parochial, suburban league that was broke and started it on its' path to where it is now, this countries' premier sporting competition.
Geelong:
AFL Premierships = 2
VFL Premierships = 6
VFA Premierships = 7
I'd be more than happy for it to be officially listed in this format.

[sherb]

If in 2075, the current AFL has expanded to become the South-East Asian Australian Football League, with six overseas sides in it to complement the remaining 10 Australian sides (ie six of the current sides have bitten the dust), and significantly different travel, fixturing, recruiting, training and pay arrangements are in place, should all records in the current AFL be similarly discounted or even disregarded as people are suggesting with the VFL? If so, are people advocating that every major change in the competition should see a new form of recognition of past records?

Sports and competitions evolve. That should have no bearing on past records and achievements. I am happy with things as they are.

[Wally Carter]

Originally Posted by sherb

If in 2075, the current AFL has expanded to become the South-East Asian Australian Football League, with six overseas sides in it to complement the remaining 10 Australian sides (ie six of the current sides have bitten the dust), and significantly different travel, fixturing, recruiting,training and pay arrangements are in place, should all records in the current AFL be similarly discounted or even disregarded as people are suggesting with the VFL? If so, are people advocating that every major change in the competition should see a new form of recognition of past records?

Sports and competitions evolve. That should have no bearing on past records and achievements. I am happy with things as they are.

I would imagine that the AFL would evolve in to the IFL and any ties with the AFL would eventually dissolve.

As it currently stands, I have no doubt that there will be a 2040 AFL 50 year celebration and a 2090 AFL centenary celebration.

[sherb]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

I would imagine that the AFL would evolve in to the IFL and any ties with the AFL would eventually dissolve.

As it currently stands, I have no doubt that there will be a 2040 AFL 50 year celebration and a 2090 AFL centenary celebration.

And if the AFL evolved into the IFL and continued to recognize both the AFL and VFL records?

Should people then look down their nose at current day flags because they were "only" won in the AFL, which was "only" a national competition, in which flags were so much easier to win?

[ghostbat12]

Originally Posted by sherb

If in 2075, the current AFL has expanded to become the South-East Asian Australian Football League, with six overseas sides in it to complement the remaining 10 Australian sides (ie six of the current sides have bitten the dust), and significantly different travel, fixturing, recruiting, training and pay arrangements are in place, should all records in the current AFL be similarly discounted or even disregarded as people are suggesting with the VFL? If so, are people advocating that every major change in the competition should see a new form of recognition of past records?

Sports and competitions evolve. That should have no bearing on past records and achievements. I am happy with things as they are.

yes, then it will be X-VFL premierships, Y-AFL premierships and Z-World premierships (or whatever u call it then).

physical changes did occur strongly from 1987 to 1993. for a start VFL did not run the game in WA, SA etc. as of 1993, AFL began to run the game at every level in all states. so to say "nothing changed" is not really true. nothing may have changed down at carlton, collingwood etc but alot changed in the competition. whilst there may not be a clear cut day when a national competition started, that doesnt automatically means that it never did.

Whilst it can be given to a point that WCE and bears joined expanded VFL competition, port and freo certainly did not join an expanded competition of another state. its now a national competition. VFL was not national.

AFL wants to keep centenary and all that to give the game some history. its more of a celebration of the sport, rather than any competition.

VFL premierships shouldnt be ignored by clubs that won them and noone is asking that. but they werent won in any form of a national competition. that immediately distinguishes them. and that is OK. those clubs should be and are proud of those.

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally Posted by ghostbat12

AFL wants to keep centenary and all that to give the game some history. its more of a celebration of the sport, rather than any competition.

No, the centenary was the AFL as keeper of the competition celebrating the age of the competition. The 150 year celebration was the AFL as keeper of the code celebrating the sport.

[Rosstickle]

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Christ, I was so hoping that you were intelligent.

For the third time, what the AFL did in 1996 was relative to1996.

The view of the masses is shifting towards a stand alone AFL model.

What was relevant in 1996, will not be relevant in 2096.

So now you're agreeing with my question, that the AFL is in fact 113 years old as it had it's 100th birthday in 1996?

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

This thread is far from concluded, and remember, you were the one stating it should be closed.

77% of people disagree with you. The other 23% of people were dropped on their head as children. And it should be closed.

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

Of course there isn't. North 1918 VFA flag is just as important to me as a Richmond supporters 1969 VFL flag. From a personal perspective there is no difference.

So you value a flag of a league which is either dead or the new VFL (im not sure which) as equal to a flag in you're current league?

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

You are being far too emotional and impractical about this subject.

I could just as easily conclude that Richmond has no AFL history.

No you couldn't. By you're logic we'd have had 20 years of history.

Originally Posted by Wally Carter

If your scenario is really the case then the interstate and weaker clubs are in the majority and the AFL/VFL historical split is inevitable.

Hopefully people from the weaker clubs have brains.

[quote=Herne Hill Hammer;16530185]

Originally Posted by Rosstickle

Wait a minute, I thought you just said the AFL only celebrated their centenary in 1996 to keep everyone happy. When in fact that's wrong. Now you're saying it's your opinion is based on what you see happening.

So far in this thread most people in this thread have stated that they value history. The minority have said they don't value it.

History stays.


And regardless of what the people think their needs to be a good reason for valuing the 1990 flag over the 89 flag. And there isn't.

It's the the whingers from interstate or weaker clubs that want to forget history to make themselves look better. If you forget the VFL's history all of a sudden North are the second greatest team ever. Not the weak spoon gathering team they've been for most of their history.[/quote]

This is where you're wrong. I'm 41 and was born in Geelong and have followed them all of my life.
We've been having this argument in another thread. I'm with Wally on this one.
It's the AFL. Yes it was a great achievement winning a premiership in a suburban Victorian league but there's is no way know you can equate that with a fully fledged AFL.
AFL premierships are infinitely more difficult to win and more prestigious in my opinion.

I could rate the 08 and 09 flag as greater because very little time and money was put into the draft pre 99/00. Should the 09 flag be classed as seperate to the 94-98 flags?

Originally Posted by Herne Hill Hammer

There's travel,

Every team travels.

Originally Posted by Herne Hill Hammer

salary caps, drafting

[quote=Herne Hill Hammer;16530185]Although this does make it harder to maintain success, it also makes it harder to bottom out long periods. I could easily rate Hawthorns 1961 flag ahead of the 2008 one because they couldn't just use their top picks to recruit Franklin, Roughead and Hodge. They had to drag themselves into contention on their own.

Originally Posted by Herne Hill Hammer

and for the non Victorian clubs there have been ordinary finals fixturing. When the Weagles won their first in '92 it was IMO worth considerably more than any VFL flag that had gone before it. Brisbane's 3peat from '01 to '03 would be that far superior to Collingwood's 4 in a row it's not funny.
My argument isn't about the improvement in standards, coaching, facilities etc. that's a natural pregression of all sports.

Was it worth more than Hawthorn's 91 flag or Collingwood's 1990 flag? After all West Coast got shafted in those finals series. Maybe you should list Hawthorns table as:


AFL Premierships: 1
AFL Premierships when interstate teams struggled due to poor finals fixturing: 1
VFL Premierships: 8

Originally Posted by ghostbat12

yes, then it will be X-VFL premierships, Y-AFL premierships and Z-World premierships (or whatever u call it then).

physical changes did occur strongly from 1987 to 1993. for a start VFL did not run the game in WA, SA etc. as of 1993, AFL began to run the game at every level in all states. so to say "nothing changed" is not really true. nothing may have changed down at carlton, collingwood etc but alot changed in the competition. whilst there may not be a clear cut day when a national competition started, that doesnt automatically means that it never did.

Whilst it can be given to a point that WCE and bears joined expanded VFL competition, port and freo certainly did not join an expanded competition of another state. its now a national competition. VFL was not national.

Define "national".

[ghostbat12]

[quote=Rosstickle;16531323]So now you're agreeing with my question, that the AFL is in fact 113 years old as it had it's 100th birthday in 1996?



77% of people disagree with you. The other 23% of people were dropped on their head as children. And it should be closed.




So you value a flag of a league which is either dead or the new VFL (im not sure which) as equal to a flag in you're current league?





No you couldn't. By you're logic we'd have had 20 years of history.



Hopefully people from the weaker clubs have brains.

[quote=Herne Hill Hammer;16530185]

I could rate the 08 and 09 flag as greater because very little time and money was put into the draft pre 99/00. Should the 09 flag be classed as seperate to the 94-98 flags?




Every team travels.

Originally Posted by Herne Hill Hammer

Although this does make it harder to maintain success, it also makes it harder to bottom out long periods. I could easily rate Hawthorns 1961 flag ahead of the 2008 one because they couldn't just use their top picks to recruit Franklin, Roughead and Hodge. They had to drag themselves into contention on their own.



Was it worth more than Hawthorn's 91 flag or Collingwood's 1990 flag? After all West Coast got shafted in those finals series. Maybe you should list Hawthorns table as:


AFL Premierships: 1
AFL Premierships when interstate teams struggled due to poor finals fixturing: 1
VFL Premierships: 8



Define "national".

a single nation-wide competition. not one state's competition. a body that runs the sport nation-wide and not in one state.

oh wait, u waiting to get me on some "technicality". haha whatever

[ghostbat12]

Originally Posted by The Old Dark Navy's

No, the centenary was the AFL as keeper of the competition celebrating the age of the competition. The 150 year celebration was the AFL as keeper of the code celebrating the sport.

gee i dont rememebr AFL existing 150 years ago. and I dont remember VFL as "keeper of the sport" ensuring that it is kept in WA, SA.

[quote=So, if 25 year old Miss Smith marries Mr. Jones and becomes Mrs. Jones, how old will Mrs. Jones be in 20 years time? A name change makes no difference.[/QUOTE]

putting spin on non-football trivial things to prove a point is scraping bottom of barrel. but if u want it that way, being married is different to not being married she is married once she becomes married and no longer single. new life. there was alot more than a name change.

[Monkey King]

Originally Posted by ghostbat12

putting spin on non-football trivial things to prove a point is scraping bottom of barrel. but if u want it that way, being married is different to not being married she is married once she becomes married and no longer single. new life. there was alot more than a name change.

Wow... perhaps Shapelle Corby can get married. Surely becoming this new person will exonerate her of drug trafficking... after all; that was someone else right

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally Posted by ghostbat12

gee i dont rememebr AFL existing 150 years ago. and I dont remember VFL as "keeper of the sport" ensuring that it is kept in WA, SA.

Nice deflection. Did the AFL not have a 100 years celebration in 1996 for 100 years of the competition AND a 150 year celebration for 150 years of Australian Rules Football? If they did, you can hardly say the first one was to celebrate the sport when the second one clearly was.

Where on earth do you get the idea that if the AFL do something now that the VFL did not do at the time, that we must surely consider them separate entities? You leave zero room for change. By this logic, everything must remain the same as it has always been or it should be considered separately to its former self.

The VFL brought in a commission, the VFL brought in a salary cap, the VFL brought in a draft (admittedly the draft was because of its ongoing expansion). The VFL had become vastly different from its origins, with no name change.

On one hand we seem to have a suggestion that the VFL history can remain together based on its name being the same the whole way through, but on the other hand we have the assertion that the AFL is so different than the VFL and those changes make it imperative for it to be considered as being separate. You can't have these things both ways.

So we have established that vast changes is not reason enough to separate a competition, because the VFL changed vastly from its original self but everyone is happy to keep those records itself.

The only reason is the fact that the AFL crossed state lines. Yet we have numerous examples of companies expanding in the same manner and even of other sports, and somehow these are not considered relevant to the AFL. We get told the are fanciful, delusional, clutching at straws, but we never really get told how they are not relevant to the AFL. A whole valid discussion point is ignored so that the beholders opinion can stay intact. It's perplexing.

What makes the AFL so different to so many other things in society that grow and expand, that their history must be maintained separately to their origin?

[Monkey King]

Originally Posted by ghostbat12

AFL wants to keep centenary and all that to give the game some history. its more of a celebration of the sport, rather than any competition.

Are we talking about the sport of Australian Rules Football here or not; because that game certainly isn't the same game that was invented 150 years ago. In comparison to the VFL/AFL competition the sport has changed to a point beyond recognition. Surely we must recognize this and brand it as an entirely new game under your logic. The sport itself would be no longer than say, 15 years old under that measure.

Nonetheless, centenary celebration was about a comp that has offered up successive premiership cups year in, year out, for the last 100+ years. Sure there are now non-Victorian clubs eligible to compete for the footy prize that has become the most valuable in the country, but that doesn't change what that prize is.

Perhaps all this would have been solved had the VFL/AFL cup - similar to the Ashes - been a single cup that had been held by the winner of the comp every year for 100+ years and replaced by a smaller replica when passed on to the new premiershi winner. This may just have been just the symbol some people need to put two and two together.

Originally Posted by Scotland

Hypothetical scenario: Lets say the AFL gets into financial strife tomorrow and the 16 clubs and IP are essentially 'sold' to a newly created ABN and the existing AFL Ltd dissolves

I'll just stop here... the VFL never dissolved. It expanded, as you would expect a 100 year organisation to do in modern times.

[Scotland]

Originally Posted by sherb

If in 2075, the current AFL has expanded to become the South-East Asian Australian Football League, with six overseas sides in it to complement the remaining 10 Australian sides (ie six of the current sides have bitten the dust), and significantly different travel, fixturing, recruiting, training and pay arrangements are in place, should all records in the current AFL be similarly discounted or even disregarded as people are suggesting with the VFL? If so, are people advocating that every major change in the competition should see a new form of recognition of past records?.

If the AFL becomes quasi-international competition like the Super 14 then the records should be reflected accordingly. If Carlton win the inaugural 'IFL' then their records will read 15 VFL premierships, 1 AFL premiership, 1 IFL premiership.

Winning the IFL doesn't 'discount' winning the AFL any more than winning the AFL 'discounts' winning the VFL.

Originally Posted by The Old Dark Navy's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League

Therein lies your answer.

Hypothetical scenario: Lets say the AFL gets into financial strife tomorrow and the 16 clubs and IP are essentially 'sold' to a newly created ABN and the existing AFL Ltd dissolves, and West Coast win the 2010 premiership. Will we be credited with 4 AFL premierships, or 3 AFL premierships and 1 'new AFL' premiership?