Hall of Fame - SANFL Recognition

[servo]

I have come to expect the Vic bias so it comes as no surprise that the SANFL is basically ignored when selecting Hall of Fame membership.

I don't mean the current SANFL because that is now a secondary competition to the AFL. I mean the SANFL prior to the formation of the AFL. I don't even mean the SANFL from the mid 70's onwards because from then all the major contributors were lured to the VFL by money.

Prior to the mid 70's the only difference betwen the VFL, SANFL & WAFL was the populations within their respective cities. They all had champion players and great administrators. All of which would have been champions in any of the other comps.

But true to form, unless you are an out and out champion ala Kerley, Ebert etc then you must be from the VFL to be considered a hall of famer. I am not saying that the Hall of Famers chosen are not deserving but that there are others equally deserving or more deserving that appear to be ignored simply because they were not involved in the VFL.

Now i know all you Victorians will try to howl me down & poo poo any suggestion of bias. That only demonstrates your sensitivity to the matter thereby implying truth. You just have to look at the ratio of pre 1970's members from the 3 major football states. A period when most good critics agree there was little to differentiate the competitions. The Vic ratio far outstrips the others. How can this be?

 

[Dan26]

Depends what the ratio is.

Players WERE lured from SA and WA to compete in the VFL prior it 1970. There were always a few that came across.

The secret, as you say, lies in the population. Victoria has three times as many people as SA, and also three times as many people as WA.

Therefore, the competition should be about three times a higher standard. That's mathematics.

THEN, combine that 3 times population hurdle with the fact that many of the champions from WA and SA came over the border to play. Not all of the champions did, but plenty did, even prior to 1970. There are dozens and dozens of examples, but triple brownlow winner Haydn Bunton, and Polly Farmer are two that spring to mind. Bunton played in the 30's.

So take a competition (the VFL) that, due to population, is already three times stronger. THEN add some (not all) of the best players from those competition with weaker populations (SA and WA), and you have the big difference you are talking about.

Perhaps if you give us all the exact amounts of VFL players, compared to SANFL and WAFL in the hall of fame, we could draw a comparison.

I suppose the other thing is, there could be an absolute champion in the old SANFL and WAFL, who is a great player. But, if that particular competiton is of a lesser standard (due to population), how can we rate the player ????

It's like Michael Jordan playing in the NBL. If he was an Aussie and played his entire career with the Adelaide 36'ers and he averaged 50 points a game, would he be considered one of the best players of all time ??? No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't, becasue he would be putting his talents on display against lesser opposition, rather than the NBA, which is obviously of a higher quality.

I believe there was a great S.A legend called Ken Farmer who averaged over 6 goals a game in the SANFL. He was obviously a great player. In the VFL/AFL only John Coleman and Peter Hudson have averaged more than five.

But what would Ken Farmer have averaged in the higher standard VFL. 4 perhaps ? 4.1. Great full-forwards in the VFL/AFL traditionally average about 4.

How can we rate Ken Farmer as one of the best of all time, if he was doing it against lesser quality. He MAY have been one of the best of all time, but how do we know ? Are we supposed to ASSUME he would have averaged over 4 in the VFL ??? How can we assume ? You don't get in the hall of fame through assumptions.

He probaly would have been a great player in the VFL, no doubt, but it is extremely difficult to assess, given the quality of opposition.

That's why the majority of player in the hall of fame are from the VFL. They performed IN THE HIGHEST STANDARD COMPETITION.

Like I said, there are heaps of players from the old WAFL and SANFL who would have been able to be champions in the VFL, but if they were performing miracles in the 2nd and 3rd best competitions in the land, it is hard to warrant a place in the hall of fame, unless they had an exceptional record. You've got to perfom against the best, otherwise there is a question mark.

 

[servo]

A very good argument. Higher population means greater quality. That in itself is an assumption and you yourself said we cannot assume.

Selection in the Hall of Fame is not defined as the best performers in the VFL/AFL. I am not sure of the precise wording but the concept was for the greatest contributors to elite fotball as both players and administrators. For you to ASSUME that such acts in the VFL carry more weight than in the other two agian demonstrates the VIC mentallity.

Yes some players were lured to the VFL prior to the mid 70's but not in great numbers. Some players were lured from the VFL too but you decline to acknowledge that. Of course they were not to the standard of Polly and alike but then no Vic players of the day were either.

As far as the earlier VFL game being of a higher standard than the SANFL or WAFL, at times it was but at times it wasn't. State games of the past were not all won by Vic in case you didn't notice. When the premiers of VFL & SANFL played off at the end of the season (60's & 70's) the SANFL side won more than they lost.

Your response was more persuasive than I expected but still showed the Vic blinkers I did expect.

 

[Pessimistic]

Perhaps there should be more recognition of the game outside the VFL/AFL. If the other leagues become stronger then the AFL itself will be stronger.

Take the upcoming World cup which will only allow non-aussies. OK it's not the same standard but there is no reason why it shouldn't be. I hope it gets some extensive publicity when it happens because that will make the game stronger.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

You siad that in the 1960's and 70's the SA premiers defeated the Victorian premier more often than the lost.

I find this very hard to believe. Very hard.

If it is true (which I doubt), I would logically ASSUME that the Victorian club would not be fielding their strongest team. Gees, I can just imagine a Carlton or Richmond premiership team from the 1960's and 70's, lining up again the next week.

It wouldn't mean anything for the players. It would mean a hell of a lot more for the SA club.

Also, I'll give you some stats

When Victoria and S.A have clashed (prior to State of Origin in 1977), the record stands at

Victoria - 81 wins
Sth Aust - 25 wins

This is form the days when the VFL (comprised of South Australians and West Australians) meet the WAFL and SANFL

When Victoria play WA it is even more one-sided

Victoria - 59 wins
W.A - 17 wins

It's hardly a glowing endorsement of the SANFL and WAFL is it ? Remember that "3 times higher quality" thing I was saying. Well, here is the proof.

Yeah, I know the fact that South Australian born players were playing for the "VFL", but that is part of the reason why the VFL was the strongest competition.

And about my "assumptions". Is it really an assumption, to be of the opinion that higher population menas higher quailty ? It's not an assumption, it's a fact. I mean, if you have got more people to choose from, you are going to win more than your opposition does.

I may be a Victorin, but I am certainly not bias when it comes to this. I think my original post backs that up, and the stats I have put forward here back it up too.


I understand why you think more S.A players who never played in the VFL get recognised ? It's a reasonable request.Perhaps there were some absolute champions. But how do we know, unles they competed against the best. Some of them have made it, remember. Ken Framer, keley, Barry Robran, to name a few.

P.S. I challenge you to provide info on your statement about the SANFL premier beating the VFL premier. And if true, I challenge you to prove that the VFL teams fielded anywhere near their best team, or took the match half as seriously as their SANFL counterparts. I don't believe it would be possible for the SANFL teams to beat the VFL team. I believe, un-biasly, that it would be impossible, if both teams were at full strength.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

In 1979, the VFL's "night series", which was mainly played during the pre-season, but also extended into the regular season with mid-week matches, was bolstered by teams from S.A and W.A.

Here are the results :

1979
South Melbourne 13.16.94
West Perth 7.13.55

Essendon 21.14.140
Swan Districts 18.14.122

Richmond 22.18.150
Subiaco 9.12.66

East Fremantle 16.18.114
St.Kilda 12.10 82

Claremont 17.9.111
Melbourne 15.6.96

South Melbourne 16.13.109
South Fremantle 8.13.61

East Perth 9.9.63
Footscray 8.11.59

Hawthorn 16.18.114
Claremont 14.9.93

Hawthorn 9.13.67
East Perth 4.7.31

1980
Hawthorn 18.13.121
West Perth 11.15.81

Melbourne 22.16.148
Swan Districts 8.18.66

Sth Melbourne 10.16.76
West Adelaide 7.18.60

St.Kilda 19.6.120
Sturt 8.11.59

Footscray 17.10.112
West Torrens 12.3.75

Richmond 20.17.137
Woodville 9.3.57

Essendon 18.10.118
Port Adelaide 12.14.86

South Fremantle 23.19.157
Carlton 9.12.66
(Carlton were premiers the year beofre in 1979. Did they tke this seriously ????)

Claremont 10.13.73
Geelong 9.14.68

Hawthorn 20.20 140
East Fremantle 4.11.35

North Melbourne 9.16.70
Glenelg 9.11.65

St.Kilda 16.11.107
South Adelaide 13.11.89

Claremont 12.12.84
Hawthorn 7.10.52

Essendon 12.14.86
South Fremantle 6.11.47

North Melbourne 15.10.100
Claremont 9.9.63

1981
Geelong 75 d South Adelaide 31
North Melbourne 133 d West Perth 55
South Melbourne 115 d West Adelaide 54
Essendon 107 d Port Adelaide 58
Collingwood 138 d East Perth 40
Hawthorn 112 d East Fremantle 34

1982
Carlton 100 d PortAdelaide 36
North Melbourne 121 d Claremont 77
Swan Districts 87 d Collingwood 77
Sydney Swans 160 d South Fremantle 45
RICHMOND 214 D SWAN DISTRICTS 28 !!!!!!!!!

That's a 28-7 advantage to the Victorian teams. They also played a handful of matches in 1983,84,85 but I can't be bothered typing. You get the idea. The thing I remember from this time, was that the Vic clubs didn't really take it seriously, while the SA and WA clubs were always keen to impress. Yet the 28-7 ratio exists, despite this.

Now, how could a VFL PREMIERSHIP team of the 1960's and 1970's lose to an SANFL team ? They must have been fielding their reserves, or something !

 

[not dan24]

Dan24 blathered

>When Victoria and S.A have clashed (prior to State of Origin in 1977), the record stands at

Victoria - 81 wins
Sth Aust - 25 wins

That means the record shows that Victoria was better than SA but not incredibly better. Not any more different in standard than Essendon this season and say Collingwood or Sydney or even Hawks. Perhaps four or five goals better on average.

As for "three times the quality" - utter unmitigated crap.

 

[servo]

This is the attitude i have been talking about. Outright refusal to even consider the possibilty that a Vic team, player, award, administrator etc cannot be the absolute epitome of excellence. That no other team, player, award, administrator etc could compare let alone exceed, omg!!!

Ohhhh unless of course the Vic product wasn't trying. Yeah that must be the reason, why didn't i see that before, the Vic's weren't trying. Please accept my sincerest apologies, I should have known the vics only lose when they let the opposition win, it was so obvious, how did i miss it.

And nice stats re the late 70's early 80's pre-season games they were good. But i already said that since the mid 70's the VFL was superior due to the money thrown into the game so you weren't proving anything with that.

Late 60's early 70's: Sturt, Port, Glenelg & North Adelaide all defeated their counterparts from the VFL after being premiers. Yes all games were played in Adelaide with an Adelaide umpire so I suppose the VFL teams had no chance so they didn't even try ala the English games at The Oval.

The real gripe I have is with administrators. Port Adelaide have had 3 brilliant Presidents, Sturt 2. All were regarded at the time as the best in their field. All served for extended periods and most were courted by VFL clubs. Have they been honoured by the AFL? No.

PS I have had a bit to drink tonight so I apologse if my words are slured a bit.

 

[Dan26]

I didn't say they were "incredibly" better

I just said that due to the population difference they would field a more competitive team than their S.A counterparts.

And they did.

All the stats show is that Victoria won more than 3 times as often as SA did. Isn't that about what we would all expect anyway ??

Without looking at the stats, I would have assumed the win-loss ration would have been approximately that anyway. It was.

 

[Dan26]

Servo,

I think you are petrified of Victoria.

Look mate, quite a few times, S.A teams have beaten Victorian club sides. Fair and square too. Even the SANFL had some reasonable victories over the years.

But they were rare.

I'm sure Victorias teams were trying, but as for the 1960's play-offs you mention, I don't believe the VFL teams would have fielded their best team. It just isn't a logical proposition. If you can give me the line-ups, I will believe you, but until you can do that, your claims seem very dubious.

For crying out loud, I actually said that some S.A legends deserve a spot in the hall of fame. But I also said that you have to prove yourself in the bst competition in the land.

Victoria and SA have not, nor will they ever be on the same level in terms of depth. The population difference sees to that.

Now please stop being biased. Please. Try and look at things rationally like me.

Just because I'm an Aussie, doesn't mean I'm going to be biased and complain about NBL basketball players exclusion from the worlds hall of fame. I realise that the NBL doesn't have the quality of The European leagues, or the NBA.

Stop being biased. South Australians are always whinging about Victoria. Grow up. I've given you the facts, I've agreed with you (in part), yet I've also stated why most people in the hall of fame are from The VFL.

 

[not dan24]

Dan24 wrote:
"I didn't say they were 'incredibly' better"

Well, not exactly. Here is what you DID write, exactly:

"It's hardly a glowing endorsement of the SANFL and WAFL is it ? Remember that '3 times higher quality' thing I was saying. Well, here is the proof."

That was the crap bit. In my book, saying '3 times the quality' is equivalent to saying 'incredibly better'. And it just wasn't so. Also you throw in the put-down about 'hardly a glowing endorsement', to emphasise your ignorance.

Victorian sides were a bit better, yes. But as I point out, the differences were no greater than what exists today between a top AFL side and a lower-table one.

Lower-table teams in the AFL (then VFL) still get recognition. Look at the thread title. The question is - why no recognition for SANFL and WAFL sides for Hall of Fame membership? Clearly and demonstrably, these sides were as good as mid-table sides in the then VFL (who do get such recognition).

Yet again, its one rule for some, another rule for others. Typical.

 

[servo]

Just some quick H of F stats.

By my reckoning & i may be out 5 or so on each.

155 hall of famers
35 post 1978 approx
125 pre 1978 approx
15 SANFL total
2 SANFL post 1978
13 pre 1978

I don't know all the WAFL entries but assuming roughly equal to SANFL then

pre 1978
90 VFL
35 max. non VFL

Is this the 3 to 1 ratio you were talking about?

Cant say I know all the names so maybe they were as good as you say, I can't say.

Now remember that the philosophy of H of F is service to their competition etc. The VFL had at most 12 teams. The SANFL 10 & WAFL 8.

That means the non VFL total 18 to VFL 12 add the league officials as extra 'teams' and it becomes 20 to 13. Now how does that equate to 35/90? Now analyse the selectors. 1 SANFL, 1 WAFL the rest VFL. I rest my case.

I didn't want to get too deeply into stats because they can be manipulated to read whatever you want, but there are the ratios i was talking about and the ratios you were talking about. No equitable you must agree.

"Lies, Lies and damn Statistics"

 

[Dan26]

Servo

Well, it's about 3 to 1. Now, if you take into account BOTH the SANFL it SHOULD be about even, theoretically, because the population of SA and WA combined is roughly equal to that of Victoria. Why the diference ? Many reasons.

Despite what you say, there were heaps of South Australians who came over to the VFL which further distorted the talent gap. Forget about the number of teams. That's irrelevant. Hardly any players from Victoria went to SA to play. Certianly no champions did. And it has happened throughout history. Do I have to go to the stats to prove it ?

It's mainly got to do with playing at your best AGAINST the best. The VFL was the best, so that is where you prove yourself. Don't you agree ? I agree, those administrators you mentioned, could well have got a gig.

As for the players ? I don't necessarily think any more should go in the hall of fame who were from the SANFL or WAFL. If so, who ? And at the expense of who ?

If you do take out a player from the VFL and replace him in the hall of fame with an SANFL player, firstly think how the VFL player (who might have been born in SA) would have fared in the SANFL. He probably would have dominated.

Remember, the judges in the hall of fame consist of South Australian, Western Australians, Victorians etc. Neil Kerley was a judge, as was the WA representative. I think the best players, FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY are represented.

The MAJORITY of the best players in the country were playing in the VFL. Not all, but that is where the SANFL players come in. I dont care what you say, the FACT is that most of the best players in the country were in the VFL, hence the differece you are talking about.

The 28-7 Night series ratio I mentioned is "roughly" equivalent to the 90-35 "hall of fame" numbers that you put up.

Enough already.

 

[Eagle_Fan]

This is kinda off topic, but I was pretty pleased when they began initiating WAFL and SANFL players into the Hall of Fame. It would have been too easy to limit it to a VFL/AFL HOF only. There were a lot of excellent players who didn't make the trip accross (Stephen Michael this years inductee), and I think it's great they are still recognised

BTW Dan/ Swan Districts were Premiers '82, '83 and '84, so I'm not sure how seriously they were taking that series!

 

[servo]

You know I woke up this morning with a bit of a hangover and I could vaguely remember last night wafflin on about something that wasn't making much sense.

It took me a while but I think I found it

 

[spell_check]

This is kinda off topic, but I was pretty pleased when they began initiating WAFL and SANFL players into the Hall of Fame. It would have been too easy to limit it to a VFL/AFL HOF only. There were a lot of excellent players who didn't make the trip accross (Stephen Michael this years inductee), and I think it's great they are still recognised

BTW Dan/ Swan Districts were Premiers '82, '83 and '84, so I'm not sure how seriously they were taking that series!

I read that they sent out a reserves side in protest of the match date being changed 3 times so it would favour Richmond more, and not taking Swan Districts' view into account.

 

[Count Zero]

The AFL itself does nothing to acknowledge the history of our great national game outside of the VFL/AFL. Even previous national Australian Rules competitions are treated as if they never existed. It would seem that it is the agenda of the AFL to brand itself as the one and only manifestation of Aussie Rules, and the only history prior to the AFL was the VFL.
The following quote is taken from a book by Max Sayer,"As the self-appointed custodian of the game across Australia, it would be appropriate if the AFL were to recognise more records from the SANFL and WAFL in their historical yearbooks and popular publications. By 1991 the elite state leagues in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia had given way to a single national compteition which, although it eveloved from the VFL, had Adelaide and Perth based teams as an essential part of its national flavour..... Would it not be appropriate then if the AFL, recognised, maintained and published records from these state leagues for the years, at least, until the expansion of the VFL.... The Championship of Australia contests represent the earliest form of the Australian premiership, and it is only appropriate the the winners of such status should be forever rewarded with a place in the record books... Unless the AFL assumes the role of custodian of the game's history in its broadest national sense, and until it publishes nationally relevant history such as the first Australian club champions, the football public (with astute historians excepted) will never know the whole story."

 

[Walsh Bay]

Is it the Australian Rules Football Hall of Fame or the AFL Hall of Fame?

If someone like Robran's in it then it must be the former. In which case it should celebrate all the great achievers from all the leagues: Hampden, Riverina, Murray, the Tassie comps, the ammos etc.

If it's just the AFL then that's simple. It's for achievemnet in the VFL/AFL. It's no slight on someone like Michael; as has been said, there's no disgrace in being a champion in the WAFL or SANFL, it's a great achievement and honour.

Personally, I'd prefer it if the three bigger leagues had their own Halls of Fame. Recognise the distinct cultures of the three great footy cities of the nation. Having a generalised Hall with Ken Farmer or some hero of the Wimmera league next to Leigh Matthews just opens it up to divisive bickering.

 

[masai]

1982
Swan Districts 87 d Collingwood 77

RICHMOND 214 D SWAN DISTRICTS 28 !!!!!!!!!

As a sidelight to this discussion, here's the history of thses games.

Swans beat Collingwood (wonder which jumper they wore), and were then scheduled to play Richmond. The VFL (national body?) kept changing the date for the Richmond game, so John Todd told them where to stick it and then sent his WAFL reserves team.

Memories.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I have never laughed so hard at any thread on BigFooty as I did with this one. It is so true, ignorance IS bliss to some people. I loved the argument about the Interstate records when Victoria used to load their team with players outside Victoria and then win carnival after carnival. South Australia would take on Victoria ... was Malcolm Blight playing for SA? Nope, playing for Victoria. Those state records are a farce. When State of Origin was introduced, we saw how other states were able to take on, and defeat Victoria, regularly.

The other argument that had me rolling in the aisle laighing was the one where someone extracted three night series where Victorian clubs had victories over SA and WA. I think the seasons were 1979, 1982, 1983. Why didn't he mention 1976 for example?

Just to refresh the memory, here are some scores from that series:
Glenelg 11-10 (76), d. Richmond 9-8 (72)
Port Adelaide 14-13 (97), d. Footscray 9-9 (63)

And here's my personal favourite:
Norwood 22-14 (146), thrashed Carlton 5-10 (40).

And in case anyone dares suggest Carlton weren't being fair dinkum in the competition, in their earlier meeting with South Fremantle, the score read:
Carlton 22-16 (148), d. South Fremantle 3-5 (23).

The two power teams of the VFL at that time Hawthorn and North Melbourne played off for the title, but only after they had beaten Norwood and Glenelg in close fought semi finals. My club Norwood did very well against VFL clubs in the 70s and 80s, chalking up a number of wins.

The top 4 teams in the SANFL in 1976 were strong enough to compete well with VFL clubs. By the time the 80s arrived, most top SANFL and WAFL player had been recruited to the VFL, thus weakening the local competitions.

 

[sigur]

Just a few more results :- from 1967 (nicked from http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/a_review_of_the_1967_football_season.htm)

VFL runner-up Geelong emerge victorious by 3 points against North Adelaide (3rd in the SANFL), despite atrocious kicking for goal. Geelong won 9.26 (80) to the Roosters’ 11.11 (77). Two days later, also under floodlights at Norwood, SANFL runner-up Port Adelaide made light of a break of only 5 days since the grand final when it overcame Collingwood (4th in the VFL) 13.15 (3) to 12.9 (81) in front of another respectable attendance of 10,400.[8] The pick of the encounters, however, took place at Adelaide Oval on Saturday 7 October when a crowd of 21,741 was treated to all the skills of the game as SANFL premier Sturt 19.8 (122) defeated Carlton (3rd in the VFL) 11.15 (81). Even Ron Barassi was impressed, declaring “I am now convinced that Sturt are one of the most talented and certainly one of the top teams in Australia ”.[9]

Now if Ron Barassi was there then you could hardly say that the vics weren't sending their best players. And can you imagine him not trying??

Australia regularly beats england at cricket and rugby despite the fact that england has a much greater population (and a much greater number of registered players) than Australia. You can't just say that vic footy was 3 times better because it had 3 times the population.

 

[scotty13]

Going on that whole 3times better because 3 times the population crap. Doea that mean the poms should be hell of a lot better than us at cricket? Does that mean the yanks should be better than us at cricket? Does that mean India and Sri Lanka and Pakistan should all be a lot better than us at cricket? Going by your theory it does but is it a reality. NO. How you can even justify saying that having a larger population means u are better is beyond me.

 

[Borscht Mat]

Going on that whole 3times better because 3 times the population crap. Doea that mean the poms should be hell of a lot better than us at cricket? Does that mean the yanks should be better than us at cricket? Does that mean India and Sri Lanka and Pakistan should all be a lot better than us at cricket? Going by your theory it does but is it a reality. NO. How you can even justify saying that having a larger population means u are better is beyond me.

Yes. Have had this discussion with young Dan a few times. According to him:

1. NSW will win the Pura Cup every year
2. Adelaide United leading the soccer is some sort of statistical aberation
3. The West Indies dominating world cricket was the exception that proved the rule
4. SA, WA & Qld can never win Basketball, Netball, Baseball compatetions because their population sare too small.
5. The fact that for most of this decade the Brownlow and AA sides have been dominated by players of non Victorian origins, again is just a statistical aberation.

The fact is that when you are talking about the pinnacle of the sport (SANFL, WAFL, VFL) where you pick the top 22 blokes from a population of 1M or 3M it makes bugger all difference. Indeed if you take the top 200 blokes out of a playing population in the state of say 250,000 / 500,000 then the difference between the 200th bloke in SA and the 200th bloke in Vic is miniscule.

The difference is Depth. This year SA may win the soccer, the pinnacle players in SA may be better than the pinnacle players in all other states. However NSW should be able to play 3 or 4 competitive sides to SA's 1. With State of Origin the VFL could have fielded 2 or 3 competitive sides to the SANFL's 1 (take the under 18 champs as an example). But if in the Under 18 champs you combined Vic Metro and Country the resutluing side would not be twice as good as Vic Metro....because for every very good Country lad who gets a game a roughly comparable city lad gets dropped.

And Dan.....please name these SA champs who moved to Victoria prior to 1970.

 

[rayven]

has anyone got the records of state of origon, between sa and victoria?

at memory i think its 9-7, which would contradict any statements made that victoria are clearly "better"

 

[*PAF]

...
The secret, as you say, lies in the population. Victoria has three times as many people as SA, and also three times as many people as WA.

Therefore, the competition should be about three times a higher standard. That's mathematics.

...

What you have said is correct, but not applicable to the champions of the game.
3 times the population does not equate to a greater number of champions, what it will mean is a greater "bottom line". By that I mean the lowers say 1/3 to 1/2 of the team should be of a better standard.
Just look at soccer on an international standard, the superstars come from countries with developed competitions but not necessarily just from the countries with the largest populations.

The SANFL and WAFL were developed competitions just like the VFL was. The main differences at the end were that there is more corporate money in Melbourne than in the other two cities, hence greater ability to poach players from the seventies onwards once larger amounts of money started being poured into footy.