When to count AFL premierships, and NOT AFL/VFL ones?

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Think we all do except we recognize that a name change either changes the entity or is a recognition that the entity has changed.

But is still the original entity. Clay to Ali to reflect religious beliefs. His full record is taken into account together.

VFL to AFL to reflect expansion. Full record is taken into account.

 

[Spiro_Malakellis]

Very interesting silverware debate. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading all these posts and felt compelled to sum up my two cents (or shillings) worth, as I think the debate so far has missed a few important points (sorry if I overlooked anyone).

Firstly, ‘skill’ at the game is relative, so saying a flag is harder to win in one era to the next is a non-starter.

Secondly, only a Collingwood flog-bag would deny this fact: The AFL is a VASTLY different competition to the VFL. Here is why:

1. Number of teams. This is a fairly academic point (pun intended). In 1897 there were 8 teams getting about. All things being equal, each had a 12.5% chance of winning the flag. From 1925-1986 it was 8.3%. With expansion to 18 clubs soon, each will have a 5.5% chance of winning the flag – much harder. Before you go ignore the maths, think of this: In 1916 there were only four teams in the comp, and Fitzroy (with a 25% chance) won the thing from the bottom of a ladder FFS. If you compare it to a raffle, it’s like owning a quarter of all the tickets. Sure you each have the same chance, but odds are you will win every 4/8/12 years. Today one premiership every 18 years is an average level of success.
   
2. Equalisation. Prior to equalisation, some clubs effectively had more tickets in the 'premiership raffle' than others, i.e. far fewer restrictions on some clubs paying top dollar for the best talent. Had South Melbourne, St. Kilda, Footscray and North Melbourne operated under the equalisation policies of today (where they all have been relatively outstanding) - I have no doubt they would have far more silverware in their cabinets. This would have been at the expense of the dominant, better supported and more financially successful clubs (Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, Melbourne). I’d even go close to saying that this onfield success would have brought more fans to the lower teams, as we saw with the Whorethorn bandwagoners of the 70’s and 80’s. Who knows, if equalisation policies were applied for 100 years, the Bulldogs today might be a powerhouse, not floghouse (sorry fans – lots of love to you for keeping it real for so long).
4. Nationalisation. Prior to clubs from the strong footballing states joining the comp in 1987 and 1991, you could not say that the best football talent and/or teams were always in Victoria. With the advent of the national completion, this argument has been definitively put to rest. To win a premiership in the post-AFL era, you are the undisputed best of all the best. The VFL was the premier state competition – just like the pre-1897 VFA was. Eventually VFA premierships lost prestige in eyes of fans during the better VFL era, so at some stage formation clubs stopped counting them. It's only a matter of time before this happens again.

These changes were evolutionary over the 80's and 90's, rather than revolutionary. So for the record books the best line in the sand for these changes is the renaming of the competition to the AFL in 1990, a nominal but appropriate date in the middle.

So Cartank, Whorethorn and Bombers fans, stop denying reality and bragging about how much Zimbabwe currency you have in the bank – AFL trophies are where the real money is at. Sure, I only happily say this because the Cats now have two, but every other club (except the rabbles at Freo, Tigerland and Melbourne) would agree with me. As for Collingwood, I need not say anymore.

[P.S. Scratch the 1995 premiership trophy from the records – it was bought not earned. I might take a go at all of West Coke E-Riod’s premiership success also, but there’s something about a former GFC legend full forward and stones and glasshouses or something I should remember.]

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Good to hear from you Spiro. Haven't heard from you, since you and Tony used to change on my in the 80s down at Queens Park.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

Well done on that.

Totally usleless to this thread though.

Well done on second place this year, BTW. First side in history iirc to win the first three quarters of a GF and still lose!!!! Stick that stat in your achivement ladder!!!!

I did I put it under runners Up!!

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

The 1982 to 1989 premierships (inclusive) are the / premierships. Can be argued either way.

The AFL was gazzetted in 1990. Flags since then can't be argued as VFL. Ones prior to 1982 can't be argued as AFL.

Great point but for sake of SANITY 1990 has to be the (unfortunate for the hawks) beginning. surely?

There is nothing wrong with VFL flags... they were the best kind of their day and for blues fans YOU WON THE VFL so relax!! And maybe srart worrying aboiut the AFL cause you guys need to get going if ya gonna win that in 100 years! I dont know why maggies fans and blues fans getting so defensive... they just want to be given the top of the AFL ladder?? like the VFL?? not gonna happen they gonna have to earn this time

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But is still the original entity. Clay to Ali to reflect religious beliefs. His full record is taken into account together.

VFL to AFL to reflect expansion. Full record is taken into account.

Gary Hocking to Whiskas and back again!

 

[krisholio14]

ODN, i'm going to quote some of your work from one of the many threads that have been started on this topic.....

Well yes they are ... basically speaking. They don't have AFL written on them because the name hadn't changed at the time. They are referred to as VFL/AFL because they are were in the same comp but have different things written on them.

The best example of this was given earlier in the thread. Brian Lake was Brian Harris. We call him Brian Harris and all of Brian Lake's games played are under the history of Brian Lake now.

For the same reasons of expediency we would much rather say that Carlton have won 16 AFL flags as all 16 flags are in the same continuous competition. Because people don't like the implication that Carlton have won 16 flags in the national competition, we tend to use the VFL/AFL flags to appease them. They then say that there is no such thing as a VFL/AFL flag and seek to push the line back further. There is no such concession forthcoming.

Teams changing names are also a good example of the bracketing of things.

If I said that Ian Stewart played for St Kilda and Richmond, you would assume he played for two different clubs, which he did.

If I said that Tony Liberatore played for Footscray and Western Bulldogs, if you did not know better you would think he played for two different clubs. They were the same continuing club, with a rebranding for marketing purposes. So we say that Libber played for Footscray/Western Bulldogs. There is no such team but it demonstrates the link.

The same is done with South Melbourne/Sydney.

It has to be done expecially with a team like Sydney. You can't say that Bob Pratt was a Sydney champion full forward as was Tony Lockett. You also don't want to say that Sydney had a champion full forward and so did South Melbourne. When you check the goalkicking lists for Sydney, both players will appear on it. Yet Bob Pratt never stepped foot in Sydney as a player.

So to draw the link but also the physical distinction, they mention both in the same breath.

It is a shame when things done to add a footnote in history also contribute to clouding the issue further.

 

[Wallaby]

Oh, well - at least you guys have solved the dilemma about cricket rankings.

We can now say Don Bradman was just a hack - good for his time, but not worth much in the current rankings - after all when he was playing, Zimbabwe and Bangledesh were not test nations, neither were Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Australia just didn't play New Zealand. All those centuries and series wins against England don't mean squat.

If you didn't play after Bangladesh became a test nation, your performances must be severely downgraded.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Oh, well - at least you guys have solved the dilemma about cricket rankings.

We can now say Don Bradman was just a hack - good for his time, but not worth much in the current rankings - after all when he was playing, Zimbabwe and Bangledesh were not test nations, neither were Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Australia just didn't play New Zealand. All those centuries and series wins against England don't mean squat.

If you didn't play after Bangladesh became a test nation, your performances must be severely downgraded.

Once heard Allan Border say that Bradman told him that he (Bradman) would have averaged about 55 if he had of been exposed to the West Indies pace attack of the latter part of last century.

But is still the original entity. Clay to Ali to reflect religious beliefs. His full record is taken into account together. VFL to AFL to reflect expansion. Full record is taken into account.

By definition an expansion is not an original entity.

 

[Monkey King]

I dont know why maggies fans and blues fans getting so defensive... they just want to be given the top of the AFL ladder?? like the VFL?? not gonna happen they gonna have to earn this time

Small man syndrome. All clubs started from nothing and some were able to grow into strong clubs, others not. Much like companies today, they grow to a point of strength. Let me ask you, do think communist state owned enterprises have earned their profits more than companies that compete in an open market?

Take a look at this make-believe AFL premiership table... so heavily influenced by AFL assistance; from Brisbane's merger/concession to WCE, Adelaide and Port's start up concessions. Of course there are good reasons for these interventions, but in the cold hard light of day, are those flags really more valuable? Often people quote the salary cap and draft as reasons why they are, but examples abound of premierships won on the back of these innovations being compromised.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Once heard Allan Border say that Bradman told him that he (Bradman) would have averaged about 55 if he had of been exposed to the West Indies pace attack of the latter part of last century.

He's probably right.

But that doesnt change the fact that despite the considerable number of changes over the years to the game that his records are still compared directly to those of modern day players.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Once heard Allan Border say that Bradman told him that he (Bradman) would have averaged about 55 if he had of been exposed to the West Indies pace attack of the latter part of last century.

Noble concession by Bradman, but not measurable in any way.

By definition an expansion is not an original entity.

You are playing a game of semantics, possibly being deliberately perverse, possibly because your argument is weak ... I can't be sure.

A person or an organisation is a physical entity. If you feel that an original entity can not change or it is not original, you will also object if I said 'same' entity because if it changes it is not the same.

That is well and good but you can't use it to demonstrate the difference between the VFL and the AFL. The AFL as an entity changes with every annoouncement, every rule change, every tactic, every new player etc etc.

As an entity, the VFL is the same physical entity as the AFL, albeit with changes, changes I might add that it has continually had since its inception.

 

[Wally Carter]

I have to LOL at supporters of the "Old 4" clinging to their long, distant periods of relevance.

What about the 1924 premiership that was awarded to Essendon by "percentage" ?

The same 1924 VFL premier side that was marred by bribery allegations.

The same 1924 VFL premier side that went on to be beaten by VFA powerhouse Footscray in the 1924 "Champions of Victoria" trophy.

Do we include that premiership, or should we give Footscray, and the VFA, that flag in 1924?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I have to LOL at supporters of the "Old 4" clinging to their long, distant periods of relevance.

Silly assertion to make. If we said that supporters of other VFL era sides were happy to dismiss the past because it was not all that successful, would that be an equally silly assertion to make?

It is about what actually happened. It is about the truth. Do I want to have Collingwood hold the record for most wins in the competition? No. To hold the record for most flags in a row? No. It is factual though and you don't rewrite history to suit yourself.

What about the 1924 premiership that was awarded to Essendon by "percentage" ?

What about it? What about the 1897 one which also did not feature a grand final play off? What about minor premiers getting knocked out of the finals first up, getting to rest, then challenge the eventual winner in another grand final? The code and competition was ever evolving and still needs refining. We still have lopsided draws and home ground advantage issues.

The same 1924 VFL premier side that was marred by bribery allegations?

And we have never had controversy in the game before?

The same 1924 VFL premier side that went on to be beaten by VFA powerhouse Footscray in the 1924 "Champions of Victoria" trophy.

A few premiers got beaten by sides from other competitions. You quote a year to prove a point in relation to history? Clutching at straws much?

Do we include that premiership, or should we give Footscray, and the VFA, that flag in 1924?

You include that one because it happened. If there are extenuating circumstances, then football followers will know about them. People question 1993 - 'probably cheating', 1995 - 'probably cheating', 2001-2003 - 'drug cheating (Lynch), AFL concessions', 2006 - 'drugs', 2008 - 'injunction', hell 1927-1930 - 'maybe paying amateurs.'

It will keep on happening and some flags will always seem lesser than others. They were all relevant to their time however and that is what counts, not comparing them 80 years later.

Fitzroy got the spoon and the flag in the same year (1916?) due to only having four sides due to the war.

Those flags meant something to the supporters and communities back then and we do them a disservice trying to pass judgment and ignoring their efforts based on our own ideals while sitting in our ivory towers almost a century later. Who elected us judge, jury and executioner? We are hear to carry on the traditions, not tear them down to sate our own fragile egos.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

ODN, i'm going to quote some of your work from one of the many threads that have been started on this topic.....

Thanks for finding that. I sometimes forget what I have posted until reminded. That is more lucid than the arguments I have been making here about Widgets!

 

[Wally Carter]

Silly assertion to make. If we said that supporters of other VFL era sides were happy to dismiss the past because it was not all that successful, would that be an equally silly assertion to make?

There is a trend in this thread that is undeniable. I was merely making a comment about that.

What about it? What about the 1897 one which also did not feature a grand final play off? What about minor premiers getting knocked out of the finals first up, getting to rest, then challenge the eventual winner in another grand final?

Excellent points. This is another reason that the VFL should be considered irrelevant in modern AFL calculations.

And we have never had controversy in the game before?

One mans "controversy" is another mans historical relevance.

A few premiers got beaten by sides from other competitions. You quote a year to prove a point in relation to history? Clutching at straws much?

Lame reply, just lame.

The AFL is without doubt THE premier Australian Rules Football competition. Burdening it with the detritus of the long distant VFL is insulting to its reputation.

You include that one because it happened. If there are extenuating circumstances, then football followers will know about them. People question 1993 - 'probably cheating', 1995 - 'probably cheating', 2001-2003 - 'drug cheating (Lynch), AFL concessions', 2006 - 'drugs', 2008 - 'injunction', hell 1927-1930 - 'maybe paying amateurs.'

Your argument reeks of desperation.

The only thing that matters about the aforementioned years is that all of them happend in the AFL with the exception of 1927 - 1930.

It will keep on happening and some flags will always seem lesser than others.

Agreed.

VAFA flags will always be deemed inferior to VFA flags and VFL flags will always be deemed inferior to AFL flags.

They were all relevant to their time however and that is what counts, not comparing them 80 years later.

Of course they were relevant to their time, but you seem to blur the line when it is obvious that they were also relevant to their respective competitions.

Fitzroy got the spoon and the flag in the same year (1916?) due to only having four sides due to the war.

I am very happy you raised this point as there is a very strong argument that the 1914-1918 North invincibles VFA team would have beaten this Fitzroy team.

Those flags meant something to the supporters and communities back then and we do them a disservice trying to pass judgment and ignoring their efforts based on our own ideals while sitting in our ivory towers almost a century later.

Ivory towers? Are you for real?

I'm struggling to remember the last time I read so much bullshit.

Who elected us judge, jury and executioner? We are hear to carry on the traditions, not tear them down to sate our own fragile egos.

Your ego mate, not mine.

Who elected us slaves to the historical notions of a few Victorians? How many votes did South Australians, Western Australians and poorer Victorians get in that process?

Should my clubs history be deemed less relevant because of relative poverty and external power plays?

It's not as if North had a choice to NOT join the VFL.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Wally, I won't even bother quoting all that or breaking it down. Every line contains rhetoric and dismissal and an inability to do anything but restate your own feelings with barely a shred of an argument. It is posts like this that derail threads.

If you want me to address a point of yours relevant to this discussion, feel free. I haven't back away from this argument since I joined BigFooty, and have yet to be stumped in relation to the issue.

Of course it helps that the official AFL line on this supports me.

Either this is an issue you care about and you want to discuss and debate it, or you think that a dismissive shit stir is the order of the day, in which case you are best served starting another thread on the Bay.

 

[Rohan J. Carringbush]

Already people say stuff like, "yeah we have won 10 premierships, but most of them were back in the VFL".

I've never heard anyone talk like that.

I would like to see it go the other way and include pre-1897 VFA Premierships in club 'official' tallies.

My reasoning is: if you win a flag in the best league in the land, it counts.

 

[Scotland]

The cups themselves would have different letters on them but officially you would be considered to have 4 flags with nothing dividing them. Interesting that being a national competition is supposed to be the dividing line on this issue and people are deluded if they think it was only a letter change, yet you wouldn't consider your globetrotting, salary cap bound, draft bound Eagles to be genuine national premiers because the name was different, simply for the sake of an arbitrary end date.

No team with a VFL premiership cup were national premiers. Had we won in 1989 we would've been VFL premiers, from Perth. Had we won in 1990 we would have been AFL premiers. Same clubs, same facilities, same structure, differently named competition. As I've said anyone who thinks the name change was merely cosmetic is deluded.

The late 80's competition had no team from SA, arguably Australia's second biggest football state. Truly national? No. Is the AFL truly national now? No. Will it ever be? Hard to say. Is it the undisputed premier national competition? Absolutely. Was it before expansion? Absolutely not.

You can pick apart arguements that say 1990 is the year by saying 1991 is the year SA first had a presence, or 1987 saw Qld and WA join, or 1982 saw Souths relocate but at the end of the day a state competition developed into a national one and blindly pretending everything's the same as it always was won't convince anyone of your viewpoint. There are no current players in the WAFL, SANFL etc. who choose to play in those competitions over the AFL. As much as many Victorians pretend otherwise, the VFL did not hold this status until it became a national competition.

You need say nothing else than the bold part. If the AFL sprung up out of the ground with a combination of VFL, SANFL, WAFL minds agreeing to form a new national competition, then certain clubs from each state would have been invited to join and you would have had a new starting date for a new competition.

You did not have a mass exodus of VFL clubs all joining the AFL, there was no split, no revolution. There was the same personnel with the same clubs going about their usual business under a new marketing regime. There had already been expansion and there was to be further expansion and guess what ...? The VFL clubs all got to discuss and vote on that expansion.

I thought you'd jump on the bold part. The EPL wasn't some concoction pinching teams from all the leagues across England. It was a new entity created purely so more TV rights money could be negotiated for the existing first division. 22 clubs played 1st division in 1991, the same 22 clubs played EPL in 1992.

If Kerry Packer came along and invented the 'Victorian Football Championship' and all VFL clubs quit the VFL and joined the VFC, would you expect Carlton to have 14 VFL flags and say 2 VFC flags, or 16 VFL/VFC flags? The clubs are the same, the facilities are the same, the feeder competitions are the same...

 

[Scotland]

Of course it helps that the official AFL line on this supports me.

The official AFL line is that there is no such thing as tanking, a manipulated fixture is acceptable and there is no problem with illicit drugs in the AFL.

Food for thought...

 

[Sloth]

Not true we are 12th out of 16. While not great Pies are only 9th and a stkilda flag in 2010 would see us go ahead of you guys on the AFL ladder.

VFL?? pfft that was a state league plain and simple.

Still is, with the addition of a few extra teams.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have to LOL at supporters of the "Old 4" clinging to their long, distant periods of relevance.

What about the 1924 premiership that was awarded to Essendon by "percentage" ?

The same 1924 VFL premier side that was marred by bribery allegations.

The same 1924 VFL premier side that went on to be beaten by VFA powerhouse Footscray in the 1924 "Champions of Victoria" trophy.

Do we include that premiership, or should we give Footscray, and the VFA, that flag in 1924?

All part of our history.

No different to the flag Sydney won when Barry Hall should have been suspended, the flag Carlton won when the ball was out of bounds, the flags Brisbane won with considerable help from a merger with a defunct club combined with exorbidant salary cap exemptions, the flag Carlton won despite suspicions of salary cap abuse.

All these things happened. And they happened in the same continuous copmpetition, and nothing now will change the result.

 

[Sloth]

I hate history deniers. Soon they'll be telling us there was no Roman Empire.

 

[Wally Carter]

Wally, I won't even bother quoting all that or breaking it down. Every line contains rhetoric and dismissal and an inability to do anything but restate your own feelings with barely a shred of an argument. It is posts like this that derail threads.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

My initial post WAS based on facts which you then attempted to break down with nothing besides rhetoric!!!

If you want me to address a point of yours relevant to this discussion, feel free. I haven't back away from this argument since I joined BigFooty,

I'm sure there were people stating the same thing about the steam engine.

and have yet to be stumped in relation to the issue.

See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil, does not constitute a victory.

Of course it helps that the official AFL line on this supports me.

You seem to conveniently forget that he "AFL's official line" is an organic ever changing process.

Either this is an issue you care about and you want to discuss and debate it, or you think that a dismissive shit stir is the order of the day, in which case you are best served starting another thread on the Bay.

I see, so in your mind I either agree with you, or I am a troll?

Do you know the meaning of the modern interpretation of the word "Zealot"?

 

[Wally Carter]

I hate history deniers. Soon they'll be telling us there was no Roman Empire.

Excellent comparison.

Where is the Roman Empire positioned at the United Nations?