30 Years of The AFL

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ok, do you acknowledge that the premiers of the WAFL and the SANFL in 1960 was the exact same status and achievement as the VFL premiers in that year? If not, why not?

I have no feeling on it either way. Over the history I feel Victorian footy was marginally better, but I'm sure the difference was not large enough to quibble about, and I don't find it relevant to this discussion.

I have always said the AFL are two entities ... The competition and the keepers of the game. Unfortunately they suck at the latter when it comes to the game's history.

They are still thinking with a VFL comp mindset when they consider the SANFL and WAFL to be competitors and thus barely acknowledge their existence.

However when it comes to comp records, acknowledging VFL flags with AFL flags is historically correct, regardless of quality. I'd hope true fans know the difference.

It is correct they do separate SANFL and WAFL flags from AFL flags however as they were from competing competitions.

 

[telsor]

Geez you really are taking this too far - I thought my club was the one with the cult fascination. The VFL renamed itself the AFL 30 seasons ago. Surely we can all agree that that 'rebrand' occurred in 1990, and celebrate the fact that the last 30 seasons have been pretty fantastic.

Sure, but it's a meaningless distinction.

The WAFL has changed it's name 5 times, most recently in 2001...Is it a different comp?

 

[Roylion]

I mean, isn't it obvious?

Well no.

Up until then, you had 3 leagues in which the best talent nationwide was spread out. Come the national comp, the very best talent was suddenly concentrated in just the one league, and two of the three original state leagues became second tier comps.

Players move leagues all the time. If one league suddenly gains an influx of very good players, thus weakenig another league of some of their best talent, why would the records of the second mentioned league have to be delineated into "before" and "after"?

The WAFL and the SANFL are still the same leagues as they were before hand. The WAFL was the premier state competition of Western Australia before the advent of the national competition and it remains the premier state competition of Western Australia with the addition of one club since the expansion of the VFL. For example Subiaco continues in the same competition against the same traditional rivals. All Subiaco's WAFL club records, such as their thirteen WAFL premierships continue. When Subiaco next wins a premiership as part of the same competition they've been in since 1901, that will be their fourteenth WAFL premiership.

 

[Dank Academy]

Sure, but it's a meaningless distinction.

The WAFL has changed it's name 5 times, most recently in 2001...Is it a different comp?

You seem like the kind of guy who is too jealous about what everyone else gets for Christmas to enjoy their own presents. Enjoy the AFL, which came to be in 1990. The years before 1990 aren’t irrelevant to history, but they are irrelevant to a conversation about the last 30 seasons.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[telsor]

Well no.



Players move leagues all the time. If one league suddenly gains an influx of very good players, thus weakenig another league of some of their best talent, why would the records of the second mentioned league have to be delineated into "before" and "after"?

The WAFL and the SANFL are still the same leagues as they were before hand. The WAFL was the premier state competition of Western Australia before the advent of the national competition and it remains the premier state competition of Western Australia with the addition of one club since the expansion of the VFL. For example Subiaco continues in the same competition against the same traditional rivals. All Subiaco's WAFL club records, such as their thirteen WAFL premierships continue. When Subiaco next wins a premiership as part of the same competition they've been in since 1901, that will be their fourteenth WAFL premiership.

Surely not...after all, the WAFL will have changed it's name 5 times over that journey....that means it's a new comp each time, right?

 

[telsor]

You seem like the kind of guy who is too jealous about what everyone else gets for Christmas to enjoy their own presents. Enjoy the AFL, which came to be in 1990. The years before 1990 aren’t irrelevant to history, but they are irrelevant to a conversation about the last 30 seasons.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

1989 is just as relevant as 1990.

 

[Dank Academy]

1989 is just as relevant as 1990.

Maybe in another thread?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Dazzler9]

Well no.



Players move leagues all the time. If one league suddenly gains an influx of very good players, thus weakenig another league of some of their best talent, why would the records of the second mentioned league have to be delineated into "before" and "after"?

The WAFL and the SANFL are still the same leagues as they were before hand. The WAFL was the premier state competition of Western Australia before the advent of the national competition and it remains the premier state competition of Western Australia with the addition of one club since the expansion of the VFL. For example Subiaco continues in the same competition against the same traditional rivals. All Subiaco's WAFL club records, such as their thirteen WAFL premierships continue. When Subiaco next wins a premiership as part of the same competition they've been in since 1901, that will be their fourteenth WAFL premiership.

But players don't move from the AFL to the WAFL, do they. Only if they're not good enough to get a game in the AFL.

Up until 1987 or so, you had 3 separate leagues in which the talent was spread evenly (relatively, anyway). After that point, you had one main league into which ALL the best talent was funnelled. Thus, the WAFL and SANFL became second rung leagues, and the VFL/AFL became THE league. So at or around that time, we can make a distinction in the relative value of achievements in those leagues.

If you don't understand that simple concept, then I have no further comment for you.

 

[Dazzler9]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to de-value Carlton's 16 flags for example, or Richmond's 11, etc. They're all perfectly valid and worthy. It's just that I'm putting most of them on the same footing as Claremont's 7 flags pre-1990, East Perth's 14 flags pre-1990, Gleneg's 4 flags, etc..

 

[Carringbush2010]

Tiers are not irrelevant, only to you as it fits your narrative. There is not a person over 40 alive that follows football that doesn't know that the VFL/WAFL and the SANFL were the three first tier football leagues in Australia from day dot until the early 80's.
Look at my signature and you will see what is real with what flags are what, some are first tier and the others are not.
The football hierarchy as you said is pretty clear in my eyes, if you lived in any of those three states and played league football in those three states you were deemed to have played at the highest level of the game all the way up to the early 80's.
This does not deter from Victorian football achievements but for some reason you think it does.

Whilst I agree with all that, what is more relevant than tiers is the participation and attendance rates. Without a doubt the VFL was always that until "changes" as has been pointed out by many.

I doubt you'll find anyone on here who regards the VFL as a higher quality league than the WAFL and the SANFL back then - what is clear though is in those days from the early 80s and previous the participation and fan base was larger in the VFL. Probably the state populations are a big factor in that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not really. A national competition would have happened. VFL clubs as we know them wouldn't exist had non-Vic clubs entered the VFL.

A truly national comp was always going to happen eventually.

And it still hasn't eventuated.

 

[Roylion]

But players don't move from the AFL to the WAFL, do they. Only if they're not good enough to get a game in the AFL.

Sure. In most cases their preference is to play AFL. More pay for a start. If I was being paid to play football I'd probably want to play for the club or competition that pays me the most. If they don't want me I play elsewhere for a lower wage.

Up until 1987 or so, you had 3 separate leagues in which the talent was spread evenly (relatively, anyway). After that point, you had one main league into which ALL the best talent was funnelled. Thus, the WAFL and SANFL became second rung leagues, and the VFL/AFL became THE league.

But still the top ranking state competition for their respective states.

Both the WAFL and SANFL continue on as distinct football competitions with their traditional clubs, with very few changes to either competition. Woodville and West Torrens merged in 1990 and Adelaide entered their reserves team in 2014. All other clubs continue on and play against their traditional rivals.

In the WAFL, only Peel Thunder have entered the competition since the advent of the national competition. All other clubs continue in the same competition against their traditional rivals.

All club records in the WAFL and SANFL continue on.

So at or around that time, we can make a distinction in the relative value of achievements in those leagues.

A WAFL premiership in 2018 is still a WAFL premiership. Subiaco for example continues in the same competition against the same traditional rivals. All Subiaco's WAFL club records, such as their thirteen premierships continue. When Subiaco next wins a premiership as part of the same competition they've been in since 1901, that will be their fourteenth WAFL premiership.

West Coast and Fremantle are not state representative teams.

If you don't understand that simple concept, then I have no further comment for you.

Very well.

 

[Deathray]

Cant believe Romano actually only played 6 games. He was the equal in my memory to the great Alex Ishchenko.

 

[Gibbke]

I'm happy with 1990. Allows one to clearly think of the 80s in VFL/SANFL/WAFL terms, then move on from that (the 90s progressively seeing the death of SoO).

If the Swans had managed to win the flag in 1986/87 (they had to play all their 'home' finals in Melbourne, and suffered accordingly), then there might be an argument, but as is 1990 is easiest. I could only see Hawks fans complaining.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the first finals match played outside Victoria was the 1991 QF. Whilst the finals system for interstate sides was still much maligned in the 90s (namely, the limitations on hosting interstate finals in one weekend), something must have happened between 1987 and 1991 for the Eagles to host a final, something showing increased recognition of a more national comp with greater equality (if yet to be realised).

I personally couldn't give a f### where it puts Hawthorn. They have 13 flags, simple as that, and I've got all of them on video. My South Launceston Bulldogs have 1 top level premiership, two in the next league down, and have 4 from 5 in their latest incarnation which may or may not be the next level down again...on top of that, they are a merged club with 1 and 20-something flags, all senior, in 100 years of the NTFA. No matter - they've won 7 as the Bulldogs since their amalgamation, and I can safely gauge the level of each one respective to the league it was played in. That's a matter of history and commonsense...

You can't, however, put such a vague spin on the transition of the VFL into the AFL, which literally is the clincher for the argument (it's the same comp). You can't say it was a national comp in hindsight dependant on who won - were they in the national league or not? Finals venues are irrelevant - the only thing that really tells the story is the makeup of the teams. Nothing changed from 1989-90. Everything changed from 1986-87. And it was all unconfirmed but inevitable since before the Swans took the field in 1982 that the VFL would adapt itself into an AFL, still remaining the same entity just like the Ship of Theseus. But if you want cutoffs, then as said, it's got to be 1987...

 

[Gibbke]

And it still hasn't eventuated.

If your definition is "every state involved", then not only is it a justifiable bone of contention that ALL mainland states are as bad as each other when it comes to sucking the life force out of Tasmania (don't lump it all on Victoria, the rest of them vote for the status quo too), but you'd also better tell the Yanks that they've been doing it wrong for the last 100 seasons, because they've never managed more than half of their 50 states hosting teams in NFL...

 

[Dazzler9]

I personally couldn't give a f### where it puts Hawthorn. They have 13 flags, simple as that, and I've got all of them on video. My South Launceston Bulldogs have 1 top level premiership, two in the next league down, and have 4 from 5 in their latest incarnation which may or may not be the next level down again...on top of that, they are a merged club with 1 and 20-something flags, all senior, in 100 years of the NTFA. No matter - they've won 7 as the Bulldogs since their amalgamation, and I can safely gauge the level of each one respective to the league it was played in. That's a matter of history and commonsense...

You can't, however, put such a vague spin on the transition of the VFL into the AFL, which literally is the clincher for the argument (it's the same comp). You can't say it was a national comp in hindsight dependant on who won - were they in the national league or not? Finals venues are irrelevant - the only thing that really tells the story is the makeup of the teams. Nothing changed from 1989-90. Everything changed from 1986-87. And it was all unconfirmed but inevitable since before the Swans took the field in 1982 that the VFL would adapt itself into an AFL, still remaining the same entity just like the Ship of Theseus. But if you want cutoffs, then as said, it's got to be 1987...

I'm coming around to 1987 as the cutoff too actually, not 1990.

 

[Dazzler9]

A WAFL premiership in 2018 is still a WAFL premiership. Subiaco for example continues in the same competition against the same traditional rivals. All Subiaco's WAFL club records, such as their thirteen premierships continue. When Subiaco next wins a premiership as part of the same competition they've been in since 1901, that will be their fourteenth WAFL premiership.

West Coast and Fremantle are not state representative teams.

OK, one last crack at this.

A WAFL premiership is still a WAFL premiership, yes.
But -
A 1978 WAFL premiership was roughly equivalent to a VFL premiership, in terms of prestige, merit, quality, etc. A 2018 WAFL premiership is not equivalent to an AFL premiership however. One has significantly greater prestige than the other.
Ergo, a modern day WAFL premiership is not equivalent to a latter day WAFL premiership.

 

[Roylion]

OK, one last crack at this.

A WAFL premiership is still a WAFL premiership, yes.

Then there doesn't need to be a delineation in the WAFL and SANFL. Same competition, same location, same traditional rivals. Club records continue onand are counted back to the competition's inception.

A 1978 WAFL premiership was roughly equivalent to a VFL premiership, in terms of prestige, merit, quality, etc. A 2018 WAFL premiership is not equivalent to an AFL premiership however. One has significantly greater prestige than the other.

So what.

Once again. The the WAFL and SANFL continue on as distinct football competitions with their traditional clubs, with very few changes to either competition. Woodville and West Torrens merged in 1990 and Adelaide entered their reserves team in 2014. All other clubs in that competition continue on and play against their traditional rivals. The standard of players is almost immaterial. An influx or exodus of talent does not mean the competition records need to be delineated.

Ergo, a modern day WAFL premiership is not equivalent to a latter day WAFL premiership.

I could just as easily argue that the talent today in the WAFL and the SANFL is much better than it was one hundred years ago when the same competition was functioning. It's largely immaterial. We're not going to delineate records because the talent is perceived to be much better now than in the distant past, even though the same competition was still in existance.

 

[RolandF1]

The 'V8 Supercars' or 'Supercars' didn't offfically start in 1993, its when they changed the name for 1997. Whats the difference between 96 and 97? Nothing, just the name change.

Same with VFL to AFL. Symbolic. Official confirmation of a new direction.

 

[Monkey King]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to de-value Carlton's 16 flags for example, or Richmond's 11, etc. They're all perfectly valid and worthy. It's just that I'm putting most of them on the same footing as Claremont's 7 flags pre-1990, East Perth's 14 flags pre-1990, Gleneg's 4 flags, etc..

How one values any flag from year to year, era to era, is a personal matter. I personally don’t care much about the records of other league’s, only those from the league I’ve followed for decades. The offical AFL records.

 

[Dazzler9]

How one values any flag from year to year, era to era, is a personal matter. I personally don’t care much about the records of other league’s, only those from the league I’ve followed for decades. The official AFL records.

And that's fair enough. That's all I said initially, probably a few pages back now - Victorian fans have every right to celebrate their VFL flags, and non-Vic fans have every right not to care what happened before 1987.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

How one values any flag from year to year, era to era, is a personal matter. I personally don’t care much about the records of other league’s, only those from the league I’ve followed for decades. The offical AFL records.

Totally agree, but we should not be mocked for acknowledging our great WA and SA clubs who have achieved similar results to your Victorian clubs.

 

[Dank Academy]

The 'V8 Supercars' or 'Supercars' didn't offfically start in 1993, its when they changed the name for 1997. Whats the difference between 96 and 97? Nothing, just the name change.

Same with VFL to AFL. Symbolic. Official confirmation of a new direction.

Yeah, I think we’re agreeing on that fact that it was essentially the same league from 89-90. But symbolism does matter - and that change of name to me is the best way to identify the change from the VFL-era to AFL-era, as the two are not the same.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Monkey King]

Totally agree, but we should not be mocked for acknowledging our great WA and SA clubs who have achieved similar results to your Victorian clubs.

Sure. I certainly don’t have an issue with anyone celebrating the success of a club they support in another league, or even another sport. It’s just not this league is all I’m saying, which dampens its relevance here.

 

[Monkey King]

Yeah, I think we’re agreeing on that fact that it was essentially the same league from 89-90. But symbolism does matter - and that change of name to me is the best way to identify the change from the VFL-era to AFL-era, as the two are not the same.

1987 & 1991 are both far more symbolic to me of the changing league.