2020 AFL fixture released

[FreeTK]

Apparently it's the toughest draw in the history of man for west coast, the cats are offended that away games are not at Kardinia Park.

Other than that, okay

I know that this was sarcasm, but almost every media outlet has rated our draw as the most difficult, and usually by some margin. Footyology even says it is the highest rating (i.e. hardest) draw they have seen in 9 years.

https://footyology.com.au/afl-fixture-2020-finding-the-real-winners-losers/
"The Eagles have been superb on the road the last couple of years, and it’s just as well. Because while their travel requirements always inflate their score (remembering the lower the score the better) their total of 89 points for next year’s fixture is the highest I’ve ever recorded over nine seasons."

 

[FreeTK]

Is this RohanConnolly pretending to be a Western Australian troll? Twice today you've linked to a RoCo article.

Oh look, it's my little bunny from the other thread.

 

[FreeTK]

Our entire conversation has been in the same thread-- but it's unlike you to have any concept of reality

That's actually really funny.

Aren't you are helpful little Bunny!

 

[Billy ray]

Suns lucked out.
What do i mean by that however?
see this thread

Lucked out

Ok, hit me with your answer

www.bigfooty.com

 

[JayJ20]

You look internationally.
America, NFL. When Philadelphia won the league in the 2017 season, you were hearing 'yay, 1st super bowl win' not 'woo, 4th nfl title' - They look at the difference between pre afl-nfl merger and post. THey distinguish between numerous eras.
England, EPL. Just a week ago. You hear Leicester had tied for the biggest Premier League victory winning 9-0. Completely ignoring the 12-0 scorelines from 1892 and 1909.

It feels like internationally people can see the differences in times and how a league has changed and they focus on eras.
But why cant Australians?
Whether it be Victorians going on about VFL premierships
Port Adelaide fans going on about SANFL premierships
New South Welshman going on about NSWRL premierships

When I try and think of Australian Rules FOotball
I view the AFL as the modern era. Yes, it is a continuation of the VFL. But compare 1980 to 1995. Draft, Salary Cap, Interstate teams. The league was completely different. Ignoring the salary cap cheating, Id rate the 1995 premiership alot higher than the 1980. In 1980 the VFL didnt have a monopoly of the best talent in Australia. It was still a state competition with some of the best interstate players playing, but not all. By 1995 it was where all the top players played. As much as I believe 1991 and Adelaide joining made it the league it is today. The only difference is 1 team joining and bringing in the last SANFL holdouts like Andrew Jarman. Even in 1987 SANFL clubs were beating VFL clubs. North Adelaide took down Melbourne and Collingwood that season.

When did the modern era begin?
The 2 best arguments I could come up with are 1987 (Salary cap was instituted) and 1991 (The final main football state introduced a team and made the AFL unquestionably the best (already was, but Im sure there were some south australians clutching at straws)). But from an outsiders view it'd look weird selecting those dates. So I would just go with 1990 as it was the name change. An ignorant person who doesnt support the league would see in name it went from a state league to a national league. Yes, theyre wrong as that was all that changed that year. But look at England again. Nothing changed when the EPL started besides a name change. But many go on as that being a new era.

That's because the EPL formed after clubs from the original Football League, founded in 1888, broke away and formed a new competition in 1992.
It doesn't make sense to count old titles and records because it's a different competition. Same way the original VFA clubs broke away to form the VFL in 1897. It's the same reason why VFA titles aren't counted among the VFL/AFL titles. Odd example to use because it's literally the same way the VFL formed.

Why is this such a hard concept to understand? The VFL and AFL are exactly the same competition. No breakaway. No formation of a new league.
SANFL and WAFL are completely different to the VFL/AFL.

Oh and by the way, Philadelphia have 1 Superbowl championship and 3 NFL championships (pre-merger of AFL and NFL) for a total of 4 league championships. Still recognised as a league championship. Again, a different situation to VFL/AFL situation. VFL/AFL didn't merge with SANFL or WAFL.

AFL formed without merging with any competition. It's the same competition as the VFL. It only changed its name and rebranded. Introduction of salary cap doesn't change the competition either. That's why AFL is not distinguished from the VFL.

 

[FreeTK]

That's because the EPL formed after clubs from the original Football League, founded in 1888, broke away and formed a new competition in 1992.
It doesn't make sense to count old titles and records because it's a different competition. Same way the original VFA clubs broke away to form the VFL in 1897. It's the same reason why VFA titles aren't counted among the VFL/AFL titles. Odd example to use because it's literally the same way the VFL formed.

Why is this such a hard concept to understand? The VFL and AFL are exactly the same competition. No breakaway. No formation of a new league.
SANFL and WAFL are completely different to the VFL/AFL.

Oh and by the way, Philadelphia have 1 Superbowl championship and 3 NFL championships (pre-merger of AFL and NFL) for a total of 4 league championships. Still recognised as a league championship. Again, a different situation to VFL/AFL situation. VFL/AFL didn't merge with SANFL or WAFL.

AFL formed without merging with any competition. It's the same competition as the VFL. It only changed its name and rebranded. Introduction of salary cap doesn't change the competition either. That's why AFL is not distinguished from the VFL.

There isn't a single argument disputing those claims.

However there is an argument that VFL had a particular set of conditions (no salary cap, no draft, no interstate travel, 1 of 3 state leagues at the time) which make it distinct to AFL era (national competition, salary cap, draft, interstate travel). When placed side by side, those two different sets of competitive conditions make the two achievements distinct from one another. Therefore some people may choose to distinguish between the two and the terms AFL era/VFL era are terms that can be easily applied to denote those differences and make clear the period in which you are referring to.

Eg: Essendon has 16 VFL/AFL premierships, 2 of which were won in the AFL era.

 

[JayJ20]

There isn't a single argument disputing those claims.

However there is an argument that VFL had a particular set of conditions (no salary cap, no draft, no interstate travel, 1 of 3 state leagues at the time) which make it distinct to AFL era (national competition, salary cap, draft, interstate travel). When placed side by side, those two different sets of competitive conditions make the two achievements distinct from one another. Therefore some people may choose to distinguish between the two and the terms AFL era/VFL era are terms that can be easily applied to denote those differences and make clear the period in which you are referring to.

Eg: Essendon has 16 VFL/AFL premierships, 2 of which were won in the AFL era.

Yeah but it is different eras of the same competition. The original OP quoted 2 competitions that have a complete different history.

EPL which is exactly like VFA/VFL rather than VFL/AFL and the NFL, which is a merger between AFL-NFL.

A competition is allowed to expand and change without needing to start as a complete different competition.

Sydney has been in the competition since 1982. Do we change it then? Or are we going to draw some other arbitrary line? Salary cap and draft doesn't start a new competition. The introduction of a salary cap didn't make Essendon and Collingwood join a new competition.

Bolded is exactly what I said. 2 AFL era premierships, but 16 total premierships. Total meaning throughout the life of the current competition. AFL is only an era of the same competition, not the start of a new competition.

 

[FreeTK]

You look internationally.
America, NFL. When Philadelphia won the league in the 2017 season, you were hearing 'yay, 1st super bowl win' not 'woo, 4th nfl title' - They look at the difference between pre afl-nfl merger and post. THey distinguish between numerous eras.


It feels like internationally people can see the differences in times and how a league has changed and they focus on eras.
But why cant Australians?
Whether it be Victorians going on about VFL premierships
Port Adelaide fans going on about SANFL premierships
New South Welshman going on about NSWRL premierships

When I try and think of Australian Rules FOotball
I view the AFL as the modern era. Yes, it is a continuation of the VFL. But compare 1980 to 1995. Draft, Salary Cap, Interstate teams. The league was completely different. Ignoring the salary cap cheating, Id rate the 1995 premiership alot higher than the 1980. In 1980 the VFL didnt have a monopoly of the best talent in Australia. It was still a state competition with some of the best interstate players playing, but not all. By 1995 it was where all the top players played. As much as I believe 1991 and Adelaide joining made it the league it is today. The only difference is 1 team joining and bringing in the last SANFL holdouts like Andrew Jarman. Even in 1987 SANFL clubs were beating VFL clubs. North Adelaide took down Melbourne and Collingwood that season.

When did the modern era begin?
The 2 best arguments I could come up with are 1987 (Salary cap was instituted) and 1991 (The final main football state introduced a team and made the AFL unquestionably the best (already was, but Im sure there were some south australians clutching at straws)). But from an outsiders view it'd look weird selecting those dates. So I would just go with 1990 as it was the name change. An ignorant person who doesnt support the league would see in name it went from a state league to a national league. Yes, theyre wrong as that was all that changed that year. But look at England again. Nothing changed when the EPL started besides a name change. But many go on as that being a new era.

Yeah but it is different eras of the same competition. The original OP quoted 2 competitions that have a complete different history.

EPL which is exactly like VFA/VFL rather than VFL/AFL and the NFL, which is a merger between AFL-NFL.

A competition is allowed to expand and change without needing to start as a complete different competition.

Sydney has been in the competition since 1982. Do we change it then? Or are we going to draw some other arbitrary line? Salary cap and draft doesn't start a new competition. The introduction of a salary cap didn't make Essendon and Collingwood join a new competition.

Bolded is exactly what I said. 2 AFL era premierships, but 16 total premierships. Total meaning throughout the life of the current competition. AFL is only an era of the same competition, not the start of a new competition.

Dirty bird was making the exact same point I was, with the distinction that he thinks the 'modern' era should be started at a slightly different point in time. A point which you sound like you agree with.

VFL/AFL is one competition, everybody acknowledges this.

Like I said in previous post, it is not a 'new competition' but the same competition with a completely different set of competitive circumstances and that it is useful to distinguish between the two, while also recognising you are talking about two periods in one long running competition.

 

[Billy ray]

Sigh. Going to have to unwatch this thread. Shame. Had potential

 

[VicBased]

Dirty bird was making the exact same point I was, with the distinction that he thinks the 'modern' era should be started at a slightly different point in time. A point which you sound like you agree with.

VFL/AFL is one competition, everybody acknowledges this.

Like I said in previous post, it is not a 'new competition' but the same competition with a completely different set of competitive circumstances and that it is useful to distinguish between the two, while also recognising you are talking about two periods in one long running competition.

Sighh!!! I admire your patience and perseverance in trying to educate these dumbarse Victorians. They hang on to their vfl views like their life depends on it.

 

[JayJ20]

Dirty bird was making the exact same point I was, with the distinction that he thinks the 'modern' era should be started at a slightly different point in time. A point which you sound like you agree with.

VFL/AFL is one competition, everybody acknowledges this.

Like I said in previous post, it is not a 'new competition' but the same competition with a completely different set of competitive circumstances and that it is useful to distinguish between the two, while also recognising you are talking about two periods in one long running competition.

No Dirty Bird is saying that international competitions like the EPL only recognise records from the “modern era” as opposed to historic records, likening the EPL to the AFL and pre-EPL to the VFL. Which is why the OP referenced Leicester City’s 9-0 victory to be branded as the equal biggest in history as opposed to the 12-0 record set pre-EPL while we still consider the VFL era in our competitions records.

That’s inaccurate as the pre-EPL era is actually another competition more like the VFA , which we don’t count in the competitions history.

 

[Lsta062]

And Richmond are comfortable in the fact they have 16 in Melbourne and 14 at home. Business as usual.

Where are you suggesting for us to have our away games when more than half of the teams in the competition are in Victoria?

 

[FreeTK]

No Dirty Bird is saying that international competitions like the EPL only recognise records from the “modern era” as opposed to historic records, likening the EPL to the AFL and pre-EPL to the VFL. Which is why the OP referenced Leicester City’s 9-0 victory to be branded as the equal biggest in history as opposed to the 12-0 record set pre-EPL while we still consider the VFL era in our competitions records.

That’s inaccurate as the pre-EPL era is actually another competition more like the VFA , which we don’t count in the competitions history.

It's He was saying that we can recognise different eras ie. VFL era and AFL era. The analogy he used is faulty, but there is no perfect analogy for AFL chronology.

Many commentators, pundits, and even the AFL use the term "AFL era" to denote the period from 1990 onwards. Dirty bird is just saying that we should also be doing this.

 

[FreeTK]

Where are you suggesting for us to have our away games when more than half of the teams in the competition are in Victoria?

I have thought about this a little bit.

Fairest fixture would be to replicate the finals "home state" sentiment.

Each team gets 14 "home state" games and 8 interstate games.

 

[Lsta062]

I have thought about this a little bit.

Fairest fixture would be to replicate the finals "home state" sentiment.

Each team gets 14 "home state" games and 8 interstate games.

That means Non-Victorians will play a couple of travelling sides as the home side in their state, meaning that they’ll have 12 games with home ground advantage and 8 games with a home ground disadvantage.
Victorian sides would then probably have 4-5 games with home ground advantage, the same number interstate travels as non-Victorian games and the rest being neutral.

Not saying that Victorians are disadvantaged in the Grand Final (because they are largely not), but I think it’ll skew the H&A season in favour of the Non-Victorians.

 

[FreeTK]

I asked this question yesterday & you gave a bunch of Opinion pieces but no actual example from the AFL.

Where do commentators & the AFL use ‘AFL era’ only Premiership statistics to talk about a clubs history (rather than just the era)

If you want to talk about how many premierships a team has won — you should be using the same history book as the AFL and commentators use.

we had this conversation yesterday, bunny.

You asked, I gave. Then you sooked.

 

[FreeTK]

That means Non-Victorians will play a couple of travelling sides as the home side in their state, meaning that they’ll have 12 games with home ground advantage and 8 games with a home ground disadvantage.
Victorian sides would then probably have 4-5 games with home ground advantage, the same number interstate travels as non-Victorian games and the rest being neutral.

Not saying that Victorians are disadvantaged in the Grand Final (because they are largely not), but I think it’ll skew the H&A season in favour of the Non-Victorians.

It would even out the burden of travel which is one of the big bug bears the AFL faces in criticisms of the current systems perceived "fairness".

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I have thought about this a little bit.

Fairest fixture would be to replicate the finals "home state" sentiment.

Each team gets 14 "home state" games and 8 interstate games.

Or alternatively we could just get every Victorian team to take a random mystery flight to somewhere in Australia every second Tuesday night. To, you know, "even out the travel burden".

No more ridiculous than the idiocy you suggest.

 

[FreeTK]

Or alternatively we could just get every Victorian team to take a random mystery flight to somewhere in Australia every second Tuesday night. To, you know, "even out the travel burden".

No more ridiculous than the idiocy you suggest.

Well the AFL needs to protect the sanctity of the sport as much as possible. Growing rumblings about the inequities of the fixture are not good for the image of the game as a professionally run league based on equity and fairness. The AFL should rightly be concerned about that.

 

[FreeTK]

You gave an article where RoCo mentioned that you COULD argue that AFL premierships were separate and then a few articles where 'AFL era' was mentioned by the media and the AFL separately; but gave NO mention to AFL premierships being counted separately.

So EVERYTIME you mention that Richmond only has 2 AFL premierships I'm going to ask you to fact check yourself or at least provide a source where the AFL refers to Premiership tallies in the AFL-era being counted separately.

So you didn't give anything-- but a huge amount of salt; a bit of Whinge and in the process made every Eagles supporter look that bit stupider.

The whole premise of the article in the Age was "who has won the most premierships in the AFL era" and listed Geelong and Hawthorn as having 3 AFL Premierships at that time.

Keep sooking though, bunny. It's glorious.

 

[FreeTK]

RoCo said IF you count the AFL era from 1990. He was placing a scenario in front of the reader.

Until Bruce, BT or Hamish claim that "Melbourne/St Kilda has had a 30 year premiership drought" (rather than 54/57 years) or "Today on the greatest stage Richmond has won their 2nd AFL premiership"-- the history books state the same.

Your view is controversial, not common and personally offensive to the competition. You can claim it as much as you'd like; as long as you continue to accept the other supporters will call you out on your idiocy.

How is it offensive to say that the AFL era began in 1990 when the VFL changed it's name to AFL and that AFL Premierships are AFL Premierships and VFL Premierships are VFL premierships. That is what is literally written on the cup.

How can Richmond's 1980 premiership be considered an AFL premiership? there was no such thing as the AFL in 1980.

It's a Premiership.
Its A VFL Premiership
Its a VFL/AFL Premiership
It is NOT an AFL Premiership.

They're just the facts.

 

[FreeTK]

Who are you Donald Trump? By repeating the same crap over and over again doesn't make it true.

The VFL/AFL is the same competition, just with a name change.

Lance Franklin is still the same player when we call him Buddy Franklin.

Brian Harris was still the same footballer when we he changed his name to Brian Lake.

Harry O'Brien is still the same footballer even when he changed his name to Heritier Lumumba.

The Western Bulldogs still joined the competition in 1925, even though they were formerly called Footscray.

Just because the name changed doesn't mean that premierships are valued any differently by the AFL, the commentators and the media. You may think that way personally-- but it's NOT the view of the competition or most of it's supporters.

How's this?

Hope you don't mind reading about how awesome the Eagles are

WEST COAST is great again — and the greatest of the non-Victorian clubs in the AFL. The Eagles have their fourth AFL premiership in 31 years after leaving Collingwood with the torment the Magpies know too well from the old VFL.
From its seventh grand final, West Coast won the flag by five points off the extraordinary work of Norm Smith Medallist Luke Shuey in the midfield — and a boundary line goal from cool midfielder Dom Sheed in the last 105 seconds of a match that reaffirms, as every Port Adelaide fan knows too well, the Eagles just never stop coming.

West Coast adds to its triumphs in 1992, 1994 and 2006 to surpass Brisbane (three flags), Adelaide and Sydney (two) and Port Adelaide (one) in the national era that began with the Eagles in 1987.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/spor...a/news-story/4414e2ffd81e1f06b3e89c16a0855af4

 

[Coach_Required]

Well the AFL needs to protect the sanctity of the sport as much as possible. Growing rumblings about the inequities of the fixture are not good for the image of the game as a professionally run league based on equity and fairness. The AFL should rightly be concerned about that.

Actually no they don't and it's obvious they are quite happy with the way the game is growing. More people than ever signing up as members, more attendances than ever, the AFL wouldn't have signed a recent contract for the MCG to host the Grand Final for the next 40 years if they were concerned about the inequities of the fixture and this so called image you mentioned.

The only way the AFL would start to take notice would be if people stop signing up as members and stopped watching games. That is never going to happen as long as the $ keep rolling through. The AFL are not going to care about a few rumblings regarding fixtures, in fact they wouldn't mind it as it keeps the AFL in the news.

Whinge all you like, rescind your membership and turn the TV off, in fact you should even write a letter.

 

[eastfreo75]

Yeah but it is different eras of the same competition. The original OP quoted 2 competitions that have a complete different history.

EPL which is exactly like VFA/VFL rather than VFL/AFL and the NFL, which is a merger between AFL-NFL.

A competition is allowed to expand and change without needing to start as a complete different competition.

Sydney has been in the competition since 1982. Do we change it then? Or are we going to draw some other arbitrary line? Salary cap and draft doesn't start a new competition. The introduction of a salary cap didn't make Essendon and Collingwood join a new competition.

Bolded is exactly what I said. 2 AFL era premierships, but 16 total premierships. Total meaning throughout the life of the current competition. AFL is only an era of the same competition, not the start of a new competition.

The top 12 teams in the national weren't playing VFL and not all of the best players were playing in a Victorian state based competition.

 

[FreeTK]

Actually no they don't and it's obvious they are quite happy with the way the game is growing. More people than ever signing up as members, more attendances than ever, the AFL wouldn't have signed a recent contract for the MCG to host the Grand Final for the next 40 years if they were concerned about the inequities of the fixture and this so called image you mentioned.

The only way the AFL would start to take notice would be if people stop signing up as members and stopped watching games. That is never going to happen as long as the $ keep rolling through. The AFL are not going to care about a few rumblings regarding fixtures, in fact they wouldn't mind it as it keeps the AFL in the news.

Whinge all you like, rescind your membership and turn the TV off, in fact you should even write a letter.

The AFL are obviously very concerned about perceptions of fairness in the fixture and the impact that has on the image of the game as a national competition.

That is why they explicitly mentioned that they corrected Richmonds fixture for 2020 and ensured there wasn't 7 games at the G to finish the season. That was due to pressure from poor optics from media and fans criticising a perceived unfairness.

But carry on in fantasy land, my dude.