This seemed like the best place to ask this question. And yes I realise it's probably provocative for some people, but I have no agenda here, I'm just surprised by what I've seen and would like to dig deeper.
In a recent discussion on the main board, I was trying to demonstrate where the VFL/SANFL/WAFL clubs were in 1986, and posted the average home crowds for each that year:
It was suggested that the horse had probably bolted by then, so I did the same thing for 1980. Real state leagues then, two divisions of VFA, South were still in Melbourne.
Being well used to discussions about how WAFL/SANFL clubs could and should have joined "the big league", rather than some of the Vic clubs, I was surprised at the numbers. Were the cellar dwellers of the VFL actually bigger than WA / SA powerhouses?
So I ask the question, because obviously the crowds are only one element. Are their other measures available (financials, membership, etc) that would help to measure the relative size / resources of the bottom of the VFL vs the top of the SANFL / WAFL?
I guess the question is, were the smaller Vic clubs really just fortunate to be in the VFL/AFL, or were they genuinely better placed to be there than WA/SA clubs?
In a recent discussion on the main board, I was trying to demonstrate where the VFL/SANFL/WAFL clubs were in 1986, and posted the average home crowds for each that year:
1 Carlton 35,431
2 Essendon 26,406
3 Collingwood 26,038
4 Sydney 25,847
5 North Melbourne 25,234
6 Richmond 24,656
7 Melbourne 22,532
8 Footscray 19,599
9 Hawthorn 18,320
10 Fitzroy 15,578
11 Geelong 15,319
12 St Kilda 15,214
13 Port Adelaide 12,455
14 Sturt 11,478
15 North Adelaide 10,012
16 West Adelaide 9,495
17 Central District 8,642
18 South Adelaide 8,289
19 West Torrens 7,893
20 Woodville 7,722
21 Glenelg 7,573
22 Norwood 7,083
23 Subiaco 6,962
24 East Fremantle 6,808
25 Perth 6,591
26 Claremont 6,401
27 West Perth 6,294
28 East Perth 6,086
29 South Fremantle 5,890
30 Swan Districts 5,808
It was suggested that the horse had probably bolted by then, so I did the same thing for 1980. Real state leagues then, two divisions of VFA, South were still in Melbourne.
VFL
SANFL
WAFL
VFA D1
VFA D2
1 Richmond 43,062
2 Collingwood 34,436
3 Essendon 32,981
4 Carlton 29,106
5 Geelong 25,713
6 Melbourne 23,544
7 Hawthorn 22,955
8 St. Kilda 22,040
9 North Melbourne 19,516
10 Footscray 17,782
11 Fitzroy 16,927
12 South Melbourne 16,849
13 Port Adelaide 14,114
14 Norwood 11,250
15 Swan Districts 11,150
16 Sturt 10,704
17 South Fremantle 9,827
18 Claremont 9,825
19 Glenelg 8,771
20 East Perth 8,704
21 West Perth 8,520
22 Central District 7,085
23 Subiaco 7,036
24 East Fremantle 6,727
25 South Adelaide 6,126
26 Sandringham 5,868
27 North Adelaide 5,811
28 Perth 5,688
29 West Adelaide 5,450
30 Preston 5,000
31 West Torrens 4,978
32 Port Melbourne 4,733
33 Frankston 4,667
34 Woodville 3,786
35 Dandenong 3,093
36 Werribee 2,863
37 Camberwell 2,860
38 Coburg 2,833
39 Williamstown 2,338
40 Oakleigh 2,150
41 Caulfield 2,122
42 Prahran 2,000
43 Geelong West 1,978
44 Brunswick 1,589
45 Yarraville 1,323
46 Mordialloc 1,244
47 Northcote 1,233
48 Waverley 1,156
49 Box Hill 883
50 Sunshine 606
Being well used to discussions about how WAFL/SANFL clubs could and should have joined "the big league", rather than some of the Vic clubs, I was surprised at the numbers. Were the cellar dwellers of the VFL actually bigger than WA / SA powerhouses?
So I ask the question, because obviously the crowds are only one element. Are their other measures available (financials, membership, etc) that would help to measure the relative size / resources of the bottom of the VFL vs the top of the SANFL / WAFL?
I guess the question is, were the smaller Vic clubs really just fortunate to be in the VFL/AFL, or were they genuinely better placed to be there than WA/SA clubs?