Game Summary: Melbourne v. Essendon

[Dan26]

ptw,

You're not serious are you?

Firstly, an observer after 30 years would be able to tell it is the same comp. Let's imagine he went into a coma in 1971 and woke up in 2001. He watches each of the 8 games in round 5. Would would be his conclusion?

• Coll vs Ess - both familiar.
• Gee vs Port - Geelong is familiar. Same club, same ground. They would piece togetehr the puzzle that Port are new to the comp.
• WCE vs Rich - Richmond is familiar. They would piece together the puzzle that the Eagles are new.
• St.K vs Carl - both familiar. Same ground as well for the Blues.
• Melb vs Syd - Melb are familiar. Sydney wear the same guernsey as South Melbourne and have the same nickname. I'm sure it wouldn't requie much intelligence to work out what happened.
• Hawthorn vs Western Bulldogs - both are familiar. I'm sure it wouldn't take the fan long to work out that the Bulldogs, who wear the same jumper as Footscary and have the same nickname are the same club. It would probably take him all of 5 seconds to figure out.
• Freo vs Bris - both new. The Lion looks familiar. If he is smart he would probably think Fitzroy have relocated. Thats what I would think. He'd be wrong (and I'd be wrong), but it's not far off the mark.
• Adelaide vs Kangaroos - Adelaide are new. The Roos have the same jumper as North Melbourne and have the same nickname. Even a monkey could work out that they are the same club. He would work it out in 5 seconds.

Overall, what would be his conclusion after veiwing each of the 8 matches? He would be able to easily indentify that the competiton is the same competion he was used to in 1971 with some obvious additios and a national flavour. He would conclude that a few new teams have been added from interstate and a couple have relocated. 10 of the teams would be instantly recognizeable, while 2 teams (Brisbane and Sydney) look like South Melbourne and Fitzroy. Hed probably assume they relocated. With Sydney he'd be right. It's obviously the same comp, and that is why we celebrated the centenary in 1996.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by Dan25:

Completely different argument to the Port thing. Port look different. T
See?

Collingwood run around in uniforms that resemble Ports old SANFL jumper...They look different.

Hawthorn run around in a different strip...they look different.....

WCE run around in a different strip...they look different...........

Kangaroos..run around in different strips...they look different...

They all wear different strips and look different

changing our guernsey and logo..ala the Gorillas , the Bloods, the redlegs etc is not uncommon amongst football clubs, neither is changing leagues ......
Neither is having sides that play in different leagues...

the 80 year old man runs around with wrinkles and no hair...he looks different.

an interesting aside....at SANFL matches of the 3000- 4000 that turn up each week, you would be suprised to learn that between the Port supporters on this site....most of these fans could be identified
the 3,000 to 4,000 that attend Alberton games
either by face, association, contacts, friends of friends, partying at GF nights, business, community contacts, player association, relatives, school friends etc the Port scene is very close...most Port people know where The Port Adelaide Football club are now playing...

the AFL....

there are those that cannot dissasociate themselves from a picture of a bird and believe the bird picture is the club...but it isnt


The Magpie played an enormous part in Ports history as a football club, God knows we all chanted, MAGPIES,MAGPIES MAGPIES at countless Grand Finals, but that is history, we still support a SANFL entity for old times sake..

There is no way Id have gone to Norwood or Glenelg etc..so the decision to field a club in the SANFL known as the PAMFC was a relief to many Port supporters, that could now enjoy an arvo at the SANFL whilst Portwere out of town in Melbourne or interstate elsewhere.

Dan , you are not privvy to the inner sanctum at PAFC or PAMFC, nor are you privvy to the decisions made in their AFL entry...you have an outsiders point of view, whilst you are entitled to your opinion...
Port are now in the AFL albeit it with teal and silver.. In their predominantly more than 75% Black & White Guernsey

when I watch Port play Collingwood, I see the Port of my youth matching it against a Victorian club,
Club Versus Club, I see the PAFC est 1870 playing the CFC est 1892...

95% of Port supporters do to !!!!!

PA1870

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan25:
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!

Of course they would recognize it if they woke up from a coma after 30 years. Yes, there are 5 new teams admittedly, and they play at different grounds, but who cares about the grounds? It's the "clubs" that are important. There are 11 teams that are still competing in this comp, and have been since 1925, 8 of them since 1897. 11 of the original 12 still play. There hasn't been any major culling of teams like there has in the Rugby League. Any individual who has some sort of intelligence would be able to see that the AFL and the VFL are the same. We just have 5 new teams added to the remaining 11. It's not rocket science. The act that they lay at diffeent grounds is irrelevant since this started to change in the 1980's, when the VFL was still in vogue.

Are you trying to tell me that if you woke up in 2001 after going into a coma in 1971, that you wouldn't be able to tell that the AFL and the VFL are the same comp? Are you dumb? Whta about the presense of Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, North Melbourne, Hawthorn, Bulldogs, St.Kilda, Melbourne etc etc,etc?

It is not like the NRL, where all the teams have changed, merged, gone extinct etc etc. The AFL "IS" the VFL competiton, that has expanded to become a thriving national competiton which we all love. But if you can't actually tell that it used to be the VFL you must have something wrong with you. Blind Freddy could see it. Just look at the composition of teams (i.e all the original teams are there) to see the obviousness that it's the same comp.

You have no brain matter at all do you??

What if htis 'person' was a fitzroy fan?
"where the hell is fitzroy"
"they merged with the brisbane bears"
"who the hell is the brisbane bears"

they would think its a national competition. They would think that somewhere along the lines someone decided to create a national competition with most victorian clubs and a few from everywhere else. Then he would look at the VFL and see nothing of what it used to be.
What is colonial stadium??? What is the draft?? Why is this Wayne Carey guy getting 1 million dollars a year...people were getting $20 a game when i slipped into a coma. What happened to Moorabin and Windy Hill and why would someone create a national league with fremantle in it, they are bloody useless.
The competition is completly different, the first thing someone would think is "oh theyve created a national league as interstate clubs are in this one"

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Dan25:
ptw,

You're not serious are you?

Firstly, an observer after 30 years would be able to tell it is the same comp. Let's imagine he went into a coma in 1971 and woke up in 2001. He watches each of the 8 games in round 5. Would would be his conclusion?


Overall, what would be his conclusion after veiwing each of the 8 matches? He would be able to easily indentify that the competiton is the same competion he was used to in 1971 with some obvious additios and a national flavour. He would conclude that a few new teams have been added from interstate and a couple have relocated. 10 of the teams would be instantly recognizeable, while 2 teams (Brisbane and Sydney) look like South Melbourne and Fitzroy. Hed probably assume they relocated. With Sydney he'd be right. It's obviously the same comp, and that is why we celebrated the centenary in 1996.

No Dan YOU would think that. Firstly, Its not the VFL...they would sya, oh thyve created a new league. He would look in the VFL and see names such as frankston, coburg etc. and think, whats going on here. He would see teams from just about every state in the country. HE would think its a national compeition, not a addon from the VFL with a name change. He would also see teams in melbourne playing at only 3 venues.
this means it isnt a local league anymore...the teams that "migrated" to the AFL would of given up there local grounds to play on bigger better ovals as part of the new league agreement.

Noone in there right mind would think its the vfl with a name change and additions.

 

[Dan26]

Macca,

Well you think that our "coma man" wouldn't reconize the comp as being the same. I say he would, okay.

The fact is, it IS the same. There may be slight changes (like in all comps), but it is the same comp. It wasn't as if all the teams left the VFL, and joined into a brand spanking new competiton. This never happened. Your club (Port) as well as the Crows and the Eagles joined an already existing competiton That competiton is now in its 105th season.

Imagine the current comp if Carlton and Essendon were not bragging about who was more successful with their 16 premeirships. Imagine the comp if Collingwood were not striving to add to their 14 flags to reach their two main rivals. Imagine if we were told it was a new comp, and all records must start again. Imagine how much that would suck.

Fortunatley, this will never happen because it's all the same comp that began in 1897. The competiton never folded. It has continued, and because it was the strongest comp, it became a national comp.

I think that the competiton now in 2001 is similar enough to 1971 (apart from the obvious differences) for our "coma" man to see they are the same. Sure there are differences, but look at the similarities! You seem to conveniently ignore the similarities, such as the fact that all the traditional clubs are still there.

Bottom line is, whether you like it or not, the 105 year old records continue. This is great for the game and the comp. It means the traditional rivalries have more meaning, because they are based on events that happened in the same competiton. Part of the Essendon-Carlton rivalry comes from the fact that they've won 16 premeirships in the competiton since 1897. You don't want to lose that rivalry.

I know they would be rivals anyway, even if they "moved" to a new comp, but part of the appeal of all the rivalries, is that they are based on events that took place in the SAME comp.

So, it IS the same comp. It is official. And it is great too. Port don't lose anything out of it, so what do you care? If Essendonmoved to the SANFL we would respect the history of your competiton. You should do the same to ours. I shouldn't say "ours" because it is "your" competition now as well.

And by the way......stop being rude.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Coma Man...sung to the tune of Spiderman.

Com aman, Coma man,
Does whatever a Coma can,
Went to sleep in a Ford,
Playing AFL is his reward...

Look out ! here comes the coma man!

Yes Guys, I eventually gave up my promising music writing carreer .!


This takes the cake ...describing the Old defunct VFL and the new National AFL comp using a comatose Victorian as your example!!!

PA1870

 

[Macca19]

Dan, you are the rude one. You come onto OUR board and argue with us about something totally irrevelant. You then turn hypocritical and cannot accept when you are wrong. Yes Dan it is the same comp. But someone who has been in a coma for 30 years WOULDNT KNOW THAT.
The thing that would confuse the coma man, and why he would think its a COMPLELTY NEW COMPETITION is this:

- In the "new" competition the AFL there is all the old VFL teams minus Fitzroy.

- In the current VFL competition there is Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Geelong, St Kilda and Collingwood. Its is quite a fair chance, in fact a good strong chance that he would think that teams moved to the new competition in the same fashion as what happened to the Netball League 5 or 6 years ago. Teams migrated into the new Country wide series, but still stayed in the state league as well. Similar to Port....similar to what coma man would think happened to the VFL AFL.
If there wasnt a VFL then i would agree with you, but the fact that there IS still a VFL which also has 5 or 6 teams of AFL teams names would confuse him immensly. If you think otherwise then you really are an ignorant jerk.

Another thing...get out of our board. If this was in your board, it would of been locked, closed, or deleted already.

 

[ptw]

Dan

and if "coma-man" was told on awakenning from his unfortunate predicament that the stats had started again in 1990, do you think he would be suprised ?

I think he would say...oh...fair enough.

you always miss one point, which is that by starting the stats again the old stats do not disappear....Essendon would still have 14 VFL flags....that can never be taken away from them. Just reflect it as 14+2 rather than 16 and all will be solved. You can then say Essendon were almost the most successful side in the VFL....on of 3 in the AFL and almost the most successful overall. You simply want to say they are the most successful overall, which is a nonsense stat as increasingly many of the teams have not even been in the comp !

ptw

ptw

 

[Dan26]

ptw,

Yes, I know the stats don't disappear. It just means that a new comp would be started and all clubs would be on ZERO in the new comp.

You seem to have a hard time understanding. You are talking about the history of the CLUBS (which is on going over different comps)

I am talking about the history of the COMPETITION. It is the same comp. Why in the hell I am spending so much time discussing blatantly obvious facts?

It makes me so friggin mad! It is the same comp. You joined an already existing competiton

Do you understand those three words in bold?

It doesn't matter that the comp looks different. In my opinion, it's similar enough to be obvious that it's the same comp as the VFL. Yes, there are changes. I know there are changes. But there are also similarities. Why don't you tell me the similarities, such as the most important point of 11 of the traditional 12 clubs still being in the comp.

It doesn't matter that the comp changed its name. It doesn't matter that it of a higher standard. And it doesn't matter that there are new teams added:

When an infant eventually becomes an 80 year old man, he look unrecognizeable from when he was an infant. He looks totally different. On his 70th birthday he even could have changed his name from Fred to Bill. This does not make him a different person. He is still the same individual, and you damn well know it. You know it.

Essendon has won 16 premierships in the current competiton. The competiton has existed under 2 names, and new teams have been added over the years. But through it all, the competiton has survived, and it is now "named" the AFL. In this comp, which began "named" the VFL, Essendon has won 16 flags, winning the first in 1897, and the last in 2000. it may look different but it is the same comp.

I might add, that although it looks different, in many ways it looks similar too! You always took about the differences, and I talk about the similarities. Obviously you have to come to the middle and meet me on this one. I have mentioned the differences (eg new teams), but you have to acknowledge the similarities. 11.5 of the traditional 12 clubs are still running around. The only difference "club-wise" is the addition of teams from outsode Victoria. This does not makeit a new comp. It just means those teams have been added to an already existing comp

Why is it always South Australians who are so reluctant to accept the facts? You can't have an opinion on this. Not on this one. It is a fact. It is the same comp. Look at it. Even the Brownlow medal gets awrded to the best player IN THAT COMP. For the next 100 years the winner of the best and fairest in this comp which you joined in 1997 (the comp began in 1897), will continue to get the Brownlow medal, just as they have done since 1924 when the Brownlow started.

How bloody hard is it to understand? I am objective. if Essendon "joined" the SANFL, I could see that the SANFL (even if it changed it's name) would still be the same comp. Why are some of you South Australians so reluctant to accept the blatantly obvious facts? It staggers me, and I am getting sick and tired of it.

 

[ptw]

Originally posted by Dan25:
ptw,


I might add, that although it looks different, in many ways it looks similar too! You always took about the differences, and I talk about the similarities. Obviously you have to come to the middle and meet me on this one.

HA !

that would of course assume Dan that you are in the middle ! If I went into the middle I might be able to just make you out as a tiny figure on the right horizon !!!!

We have discussed this many imes and you know my position on it. I was mearly pointing out that as you see the Port Magpies thing to be absurd (legally right but absurd), you may now understand (if only a little bit....deep down inside...how I feel about the other issue.

Whatever you think or say, the Port Adelaide Football Club are not going to throw away 130 years of tradition just because a few people think it is silly. The AFL will never do it either.

I will be content if you would actually recognise that there is a valid arguement on my side of the fence. I am not asking to you agree, but you seem to treat the topic as a purely one sided statement of fact....which in very shallow way it is....so is the Port Adelaide debate....but there is a deeper level of debate in both instances and valid points on both sides.

maybe then we could put this one to bed (although I don't know what I would post about then....still there is always PA1870

.

ptw

 

[Dan26]

PTW,

Just one thing. I would totally agree on the Port thing if it wasn't for one tiny detail.

Let's just suppose that the Magpies left the SANFL in 1996, and joined the AFL under a new name (the Power). Fine. This happened, and I can see it. You left one comp and joined another. If Port left the SANFL leaving "no evidence" of that club, then it would be perfectly obvious as to what happened. i.e they left comp (so they don't compete in that comp anymore in any form) and they joined a new one.

If this was the case, I would totally agree.

The problem lies in the PAMFC currently playing in the SANFL. The fact that they are there running around makes it "seem" as if they are the same old club. The fact that they still draw crowds proves that many thousands of fans treat them as the same old club (and understanably so)

The VFL-AFL thing is different, as you can now see. The AFL havn't invented some new competiton to make it "seem" as though nothing changed like Port have done. That's the difference in the arguments.

I have no problem with Port leaving one comp and joining another. Fine. I have a problem with the PAMFC logically appearing to be the same club as the Magpies pre-1997, which most Port supporters treat it (as the crowds prove)

See my point?

The VFL-AFL is a totally separate thing which is beyond argument. I do understand the facts about Port though. I know the Power are officially 130 years old, and I'm fine with that. But if the Port Magpies continie to play (as they will for the next 100 years), then it would seem that the Power really should have been a brand new club for the sake of logic!

 

[ptw]

I would say that the Magpies v Power thing is an 7-3 victory my way.

The VFL/AFL thing is an 8-2 victory your way (although others may choose to disagree)

ptw

 

[Blues_Brat]

Dan: yawn, ****ing, yawn.