DAN 24 V Servo Old Posts

Remove this Banner Ad

Jul 22, 2000
2,734
757
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Dan 24, Ive just been going thru some old posts prior to my joining Big Footy.

You really do suprise me, as most of your argument is strong, but a common thread you base all your argument on is population ,therefore greater population brings better performance. Servo dished up lots of logical well thought out arguments. All were refuted by you based on ..Well lack of information outside of your melbourne views..

Please this is not a personal affront, just a view based on reading your posts from the start of the year.

Keep up your posts, you are more often enlightening than not, though sometimes arguing with less than the required ammunition. I have said, though not in as many kind words previously ( keep your babble to those who dont understand )


I apologise !!!!!


What I mean is there are many who know quite abit out there as well, some with experience that encompasses all three main football states experience and well read fact as well!


Graced with all the information, without your hideous Bias, I believe you could even become a writer or journalist, such is your deft use of words.


Extend yourself young man, research, then look at the other side of the coin, dont just listen to the pack your in, go outside and visit others and LISTEN....

My young friend, I have records of VFL versus SANFL games that go back to the 1870's, 100's of them and in as many cases, as you thought VFL teams took their encounters as a lighthearted run, the same was considered by Adelaide based clubs.

The original thread here...Population equals sporting domination according to Dan24.... Australian cricket team, always dominant 18,000,000 people
India population nearly 1 Billion should be 1000's of time more skilful, dominant, uncomparable, highest wicket takers, fastest bowlers greatest batsmen. or even Pakistan should never lose to Australia, they should be Demi gods of cricket, omnipotent. super humans according to your rationale.

China- over 1 billion people, should dominate all sports they play
basket ball, soccer, etc they have more people playing these sports on any given weekend than virtually the rest of the worlds saturday basketball populations combined - they have professional clubs with tall atheletic players out of the 1 billion population one would expect China to dominate all Soccer world cups or even India, all play offs according to your population X theory would put these countries in a unassailable position of total control.

England, Italy, etc have much larger populations than Australia yet
constantly lose in Rugby against us.

As you define it...Is it because all these countries go in half heartedly against the smaller populations. your posts have said " I just cant believe that a VFL premiership team could lose to a SANFL premiership team " unquote. You have asked Servo in the past to prove it.....and when he gave you some instances you immideately said " They couldnt have been full strength Vic sides" or they played half heartedly.

I have seen many of those games here Dan, believe me when the Vic premiersFull strength sides were being knocked off by talented skilful faster harder SA outfits they began to lose their cool and ...Biffo ... You see Dan they also believed their own publicity........


Servo, I tip my lid to some of your old posts, I tip my lid to your loyalty to Centrals.
It is a shame that they couldnt win their premiership in the Old SANFL...but a premiership they have...I do think I know a number of your mates at Centrals.

Keep up the stoushes gentlemen.

PA1870
 

Log in to remove this ad.

PA1870,

You can't compare the population of Australia to the population of, say, India, and base the sporting prowess of the two countries on that.

90 % of the Indian population (at a guess) is in poverty. They have NO money or facilities. Also, their birth rate is out of control, since they are a third world country, and accordingly, they can't compete on an international level.

Comparing Victoria and South Australia is much easier, since the economic well being of both states is virtually identical. The living conditions, in each of the 6 states are virtually the same here in Australia.

Look at the Sheffield Sheild. Victoria has won about 29 titles (I think), behind NSW who has won about 40-odd. South Australia is well back on 15 or so. These are approxiamtae figures, but look them up and you will see I am right.

State of Origin, since 1977, has generally been won by Victoria. It is about 11-7, or thereabouts, but nealry all of these matches have been in Adelaide. The only time Adelaide beat Victoria at the MCG was in 1993. Victoria has beaten South Australia at Football park numerous times. When they play each other at the "G", it has invariably been a big win to Victoria.

This doesn't mean that South Australi can't compete with the rest of Australia. They can. It's just that with the small population of just over 1 million, they can't produce the "depth" of talent that Victoria can.

Have a look how many AFL players come from Victoria. I think you will find it is nearly 50% ...... well above the amount that come from South Australia. Does this convince you ?

I'd be saying exactly the same thing if I was a South Australian. I am stating facts, not opinions.

I am very dieappointed you think I am showing bias, since I am a Victorian. What has me being from Victoria got to do with the fact that Victoria, due to the huge population, produces a higher quantity of footballers capable of playing at the elite level.

It is the same reason why the USA wins more gold medals than Australia at the Olympics and always will. We are competing with a country with 250 million people and of a similar ecomomic well-being. It's simple mathematics. Now I am an Australian, and I love this country. Yet, despite my patriotism, I still admit that the USA produces better atheletes than us due to their much larger population. I admit it. But YOU can't admit that S.A is not as powerful as Victoria. I am showing my objectivness with my Aust-USA example. Why can't you show yours ?
 
I just hope you run elections better than we do.
rolleyes.gif
 
PA1870

Having read some of those earlier posts you now know what I mean about giving up on it.

Dans logic may not always be easy to follow but if words were people then he would easily win by population. But you are catching up.
wink.gif
wink.gif
 
Dan ,
China, Italy, England, Pakistan were also countries I have mentioned.

Indias middle class ,Dan equates to about 250,000,000 people, their upper class i.e.
those that dwarf our millionaires amount in the 100,000's
India has a hugely prosperous culture as well as a massive poverty level as well.

. Italy has an enormously wealthy population.
England similar, Pakistan has a large population of middle and upper class as well
We arent talking about Ethiopia here !


Indonesia with over 100.000.000 people cant compete on a sporting level with us.

How many Sheffield shields has queensland won based on your system as the third most populated state ?

WA ?

Regards

PA1870
 
PA1870,

Anyone can quote one-off examples. Why bother ? You know exactly what I mean. The countries of simiklar economic well-beng, with higher populations, win more medals that similar countries with smaller populations.....generally speaking. There are always going to be exceptions (eg Cuba)

Grendel,

PA1870, for some absurd reason was comparing India to Australia. Sheesh. India have a terrible climate for sport, have little funding, little money, and are grossly over-populated making learning and education difficult.

Australia and the USA, are of similar economic well-being. I'm bracketing, "England, USA, Australia, Canada, most Eurpopean countries, etc etc in that bracket"

What I should have said was we have similar climate, living conditions, and opportunities if you are born in one of these countries. You don't really have the same opportunity if you are born in India, Pakistan, or China. It's just not the same. Obviously there are differences between the USA and ourselves, but there are also similarities.

In many ways we are a "smaller" version of the USA. Our trends, and popular culture generally follows the USA. We wear the same clothes, watch the same TV programs etc etc etc.

They are like us, multiplied by 15. Which is why, I was explaining to PA1870, they win more gold medals than us.
 
The USA are very much like us (or should that be the other way around? :confused
smile.gif
in many ways. But they did not win 15 times as many medals as us.

We have a lesser population than England, South Africa or France but are still the premier Rugby Union nation. (Even with union being the 4th most popular male sport in this country).

Then again, the New Zealand All Blacks have consistently been the Rugby Union team to beat.

Why is this true? We have 5 First World countries - I may be stretching it a bit with South Africa - with good resources. If applying Dan's population theory to this, we see that it doesn't hold true. Increased population bases with similar prevailing economic conditions are not increasing the likelihood of success.

I think that sporting dominance is due more so to the influence of culture - although genetics also helps)

Hmmm, this sounds like I taking the SA point of view here! That can't be good. Maybe I better go have a good lie down!
biggrin.gif


------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
 
CJH,

The All-Blacks question can be answered easily.

In NZ, the WHOLE country plays Union. Rugby League is virtually non-existent.

In Australia, half the country, or more play AFL. The other half lay Rugby.

Of the half that paly Rugby, MOST of those play Rugby League. League is a more popular television game and gets more publicity than Union here in Australia.

So, for the purposes of Rugby Union, NZ probably have more people to choose from than Australia.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dan

that is my point.

It is clear that NZ Rugby is of a higher general standard than Australian Rugby...population playing the game etc etc (as you know I agree with you on this logic).

You can accept that NZ rugby is better than Australian on average, but at times...every now and then...Australian rugby is better...either on a national level or at an individual club level.

What is the difference between this and the old VFL vs SANFL arguement. Talent is randomly distributed and is distributed over time according to population (ignoring genetics, facilities etc). It is not however uniformly distributed...it goes in clumps. Another example...the West Indies cricket team did nothing prior to the 1960's, they then dominated from say 1970-1990 (20 years) and now they do nothing again...why ??? Clearly because they had a damn great side for 20 years. A chance gathernig of great players all at the one time...and maybe a bit of dynasty (success breads success) thrown in.

Why is it then so difficualt to accept that there were times when the talent assembled in an SANFL club was, at that point in time, better than that assesmbled at any of the Victorian sides ? On average, over a period of time the Victorian sides were better. But at individual points in time, clearly the top SANFL teams were of a higher standard, not always, not even "most of the time", but often enough to make the 2 competitions comparable.

Some posts have said "get over it" or "leave it alone". For me there is a good reason not to. We run the risk that the history of Australian football will become the history of the VFL/AFL. And the "contributions" of SA, WA, Tas etc will be in providing talent to the VFL or one big saga the sole aim of which was to enter a team in the VFL.

This came to the front a year or 2 back. Craig Bradley played his 300th game for Carlton. The official stats show him as 300 VFL/AFL games, but general consensus is that the 99 games for Port in the SANFL were in someway inferior.

Similarly Lockett breaking Coventry's record. Ken Farmer kicked more than 1400 goals for North Adelaide in the late 1940's Is this of any less significance in the history of the game than Coventry's achievement ?

I am not one who thinks that we should pretend that Bradley has played 400+ games of VFL/AFL football...but in the national competition there is no place for any achievement of any player outside the VFL (accept the hall of fame). This worries me.

ptw
 
ptw!!!!!!

Fantastic post.

You have put just about everything I had been trying to say into a concise post that makes sense and says it better than I or PA1870 have done.

well done
 
PTW,

Locketts record is NOT a record for Australian Football.

It is a record for the VFL/AFL. Ken Farmer holds a DIFFERENT record to Lockett.

Lockett holds the record for having kicked the most goals in the BEST compettion in the country. Farmers record is still recognised, but on a different level. I mean, they both played in different competitions.

I agree, talent is randomly distributed. This mean, despite population, there will be irregularities and such. Bit over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME, the averages work out and the most populous regions achieve more success.

As you pointed out, in certain era's, and certain one-off years, a small population may coincidently have a high number of great athletes, making them a great team. But over a long period of time, this will not work out. Generally speaking of course.

PA1870, admits that the SANFL was not as good as the VFL, but he then contradicts himself by saying that the TOP teams in the SANFL were as good as the VFL.

I cannot understand this at all.

He thinks this was the case ALL THE TIME. Meaning that over the first 50 years of the century, the top few teams in the SANFL could match it with the top teams from the VFL ? Now, if, as he admits, the SANFL was less talented on average than the VFL, how could the top team, be as good as the top team in the VFL all the time ???????????

Granted, there amny be one-off instances where there may be an outstanding team that could beat a VFL team. But I'm not talking about one-off instances. I'm talking about generally over a long period of time. That's vastly different.

How is it possible for the top teams in the SANFL to ALWAYS be at the same level as the VFL teams, when he admitted that the VFL overall was of a higher standard ?????

Ken Farmer averaged about 6 goals a gmae. He would have easily been able to play in the VFL and would certainly have been a 100 goal player in the VFL. But would have been able to average 6 goals a game in a competition that was of a higher standard (as PA1870 admitted) than the SANFL ? Doubtful. Very doubtful.
 
Dan

well we are getting somewhere.

Lets look at the common ground....

1. On Average the VFL was and of course is (AFL) a better competition.

2. From time to time there were sides in the SANFL who were at least at VFL standard. You state "might beat a VFL side", I would say "better than the best VFL side" but we are simply talking magnitude here. You would say "once in a blue moon...a random freak of nature" I would say roughly once every 4 years....again details.

I would simply challenge a couple of points...

1. The game is not played "on average". If it were Geelong would probably be the best side from 1988-1998 "on average". Clearly they are not. The crows were better (to pick just one team). "On average" they were pretty crap really (or did not exist), but still a better side as they won 2 flags (ie they were better at points in time, worse on average, but most would agree they were more successful (by the standard definition).

2. It is also clear the Farmer's record is far more comparable to Coventry's than Lockett's is to Coventry. You mention they were different competitions, but you couldn't get much more different than 1930's VFL vs 1990's AFL. But still there is no general recognition of Farmer's achievements in the AFL history.

Finally I think you miss my overall end-game. Anyone who says that the SANFL was always a higher standard than the VFL is a twit.

Anyone who says that the top SANFL side in a given year would never (or always for that matter) beat the top VFL side for the same year is also a twit.

........my aim on this site is to have "twit" be the most abusive I get......

Therefore the conclusion is that up to a certain point in time (PA1870 uses 1986) the competitions were "comparable". More so than most Victorians would care to admit or know. On my 1 year in 4 theory, and if you include the WAFL..."on average" the VFL had the best side in the land every 2nd year.

PA1870...do you know the total number of times a non-Victorian side won the "Champions of Australia" title ?

I would like to see a time where we have "top level Australian records" or something like that, instead of just VFL records, which I think would add a dimension to the AFL which is missing at the moment.

As I write this I can hear the arguement that "the facts are that the AFL is an expanded VFL" and I haven't quite reconcilled this myself yet !!!

p.s. I only found this site the other day....Finally an outlet !!!

ptw
 
sorry to go on about this...

there is a way in which the top teams in the SANFL were always as good as the top teams in the VFL even though overall the competition was weaker.

This would (could ?) be the case if the talent in the SANFL was clustered in a couple of teams (ie the difference between the best and worst team in the SANFL was greater than in the VFL).

PA1870 will be able to tell us how concentrated the premierships were but the names Port, & Sturt post war ring a bell, as does Norwood pre 1900.

ptw
 
Hats off to you ptw. Right or wrong, your logic is sound. This is also why I joined this site, rather than for the bragging rights.

I sent a letter to Jim Main at Inside Football along these lines.

I contended that the whole SANFL was not as good as the then VFL but the best of the SANFL was every bit as good.

Just like Queensland in the league State of Origin. They had dominated the series consistently until the last few years when the ledger has all but squared. It didn't matter that NSW could have produced ten sides almost as good as the first while Queensland's depth barely extended past the interchange bench. Queensland's best was as good and in most cases better than NSW's best. Queensland's 2nd best would have got creamed by NSW's 2nd best. The same applies with SA.

I would also suggest that for the SA players to join the VFL in the first place, they did so because the VFL was considered the premier competition (monetary matters may have played their part also). That doesn't mean that the influence that SA, WA, QLD, NT,& Tassie players had on the VFL didn't contribute to raising the standard and changing the shape of the way the game is played today. Sorry, NSW also. Can anyone say that Carey hasn't influenced the way AFL footy is played? Dunstall is a Qld Coorparoo boy.

No, VFL overall would have stayed the premier competition but it needed interstate input to rise to another level.
 
Originally posted by ptw:
2. It is also clear the Farmer's record is far more comparable to Coventry's than Lockett's is to Coventry. You mention they were different competitions, but you couldn't get much more different than 1930's VFL vs 1990's AFL. But still there is no general recognition of Farmer's achievements in the AFL history.


Of course there is no mention of Farmers achievements in the AFL history. Is there any mention of Coventrys and Locketts feats in SANFL history ? Of course not. Different competitions.

You can't say the talent in SA was distributed among only two or threee teams. I could say that in the 50's, the Melbourne Demons and Collingwood had the talent mainly distributed amongst them. ANY era of ANY competition in ANY sport is going to have dominant teams.

So, to imply that the SANFL "could" have been as ghood as the VFL becasue the top teams had all the talent is ludicrous. What made the talent distribution among teams in the SANFL any different to the VFL ? Nothing !

I suppose if you add up the population of WA and SA it adds up to approximately that of Victoria; perhaps a little less.

So your 1 in 2 sounds pretty accurate. The only thing is all throughout history, players from SA and WA have come to the VFL to strengthen that competiton further. How many Victorians came to play in the SA and WA leagues. Hardly any !

This artifically enhanced the VFL to make it even bigger, and we now see how that competiton has evolved into the AFL; officially regarded as having started in 1897 and still going.
 
Hey Dan,

Just a tip: Your arguments would be more credible if you backed them up with fact rather than (un)educated guesses and assumptions.

I loved it when you wheeled out the gem,
"90% of the Indian population lives in poverty (at a guess)" - or words to that effect. Sounds like you really know your stuff!

Only kidding Dan, In all honesty I look forward to reading every one of your posts. Every board needs an an ignorant know-it-all like yourself.
 
ODNB

I like your analogy (we could form a mutual appreciation society....but I am sure things will change...must be all those great South Aussies who have made Carlton great in recent years !!!

Dan

I think we are splitting hairs. I agree that the "talent focussed in 1 or 2 teams" arguement is a dud as it could apply to any comp.

As for the stats, I also agree that Farmer's record, or Bradley's games, should not be counted in the VFL/AFL stats, this would be stupid. I am lamenting the fact that we have no "Austrlian Football Records", where if, as you agree the best side in the land was not Victorian half the time is a real shame. Keep the VFL/AFL records of course.

I can see a time where we have seperate AFL records. You would then have VFL, SANFL, WAFL, Tas records...national records which are the combination of them, and AFL records from 1991 onwards. This would be increasing likely as more and more clubs are not Melbourne based, and the further away we get from 1991 so some football has been played to make the stats significant. But it would only happen if it is agreed that the competitions are comparable...and this thread has given me plenty of ammo for when the time comes !!


ptw
 
Originally posted by Indian in ze cupboard:
Hey Dan,

I loved it when you wheeled out the gem,
"90% of the Indian population lives in poverty (at a guess)" - or words to that effect. Sounds like you really know your stuff!


You sound like you believe that India and Australia should be compared equally. I was simply stating that the living conditions, economic climate and propensity for the public to play sport due to the climate is vastly different in India and Australia.

We were basically arguing that bigger populations mean more sporting success PA1870 said that India has a billion people, so why don't they win moe gold medal than we do ?

I responded, by stating that India has a vastly different culture, economic climate etc to us and can't be compared at all. The 90% is a guess, sure. If I could be bothered, i could look it up and find out for you, but I don't need to. Everyone knows that massive difference between India and Australia make them uncomparable.

The countries that can be compated to Australia in terms of living conditions, social climate, cultures, trends etc etc are :

Canada, Germany, NZ, USA, England, and a few other European countries.

There is no point comparing us with India. It's irrelevant.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

DAN 24 V Servo Old Posts

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top