if you don't like clubs and comps debates then ignore this thread !

ptw · May 16, 2001

Folks (in particular Dan)

can anyone tell me why the official stats of the Essendon, Geelong and Carlton FC's in the VFL (ex VFA) only start from 2000 ?

The VFL is the same competition as the old VFA (Coburg has all their old stats still in place for example)....the Essendon FC playing in the VFL is the same Essendon FC which used to play in the VFA....but their achievements in the competition pre 1897 are ignored.....why ??????

I am not at all trying to link this back to the VFL/AFL argument or Port's stats or anything......I would have just thought that the same club is playing in the same competition.

ptw

CJH · May 16, 2001

I think - on first reading - that you raise a very good point!

The only thing I am not sure of is the VFL as we know it today the same entity as the VFA that previously existed?

This is the type of question that the likes of Roylion excel at answering.

Roylion · May 16, 2001

It's a difficult situation for the VFA/VFL. On the one hand it appears that Essendon, Geelong and Carlton Football Clubs have re-entered the VFA after an absence of over 100 years and their stats should be continued from that point. However on the other hand unlike the situation before 1897, only the reserves or left overs from each of those clubs is playing in the competition, while the seniors play in a completely different competition. Essentially you have a maximum of 13-15 listed players of each club playing. Possibly less if a club is badly hit by injury. Can the current situation of Essendon, Carlton and Geelong possibly equate to the situation of over 100 years ago, where those clubs fielded senior and reserves sides and all their players played in the same competition? It appears the Port Adelaide side currently playing in the SANFL is a seperate club from Port Adelaide Power in the AFL, so the situation there is more cut and dried. Their stats would clearly start again.

Roylion · May 16, 2001

According to the ASIC, the current VFL is clearly the same legal entity as the old VFA. The entity that runs the VFL/VFA is Football Victoria Ltd. It was first registered in 1946 under the name 'Victorian Football Association'. Later the name was changed to 'Victorian Football Association Ltd'. and on 24.12.1999 to 'Football Victoria Ltd'. It is the same competition, just with a different company name and trading name and a few different clubs, much like the VFL/AFL, which also has had the same controlling entity since the 1940's at least. At no stage was a new company or competition formed and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission clearly recognises the VFA and current VFL as being one and the same, as they do the VFL and AFL.

CJH · May 16, 2001

Originally posted by Roylion

...

However on the other hand unlike the situation before 1897, only the reserves or left overs from each of those clubs is playing in the competition, while the seniors play in a completely different competition.

...

When Australia A played cricket in the triangular (quadrangular?) One Day Series a few years back, I believe their stats were counted when they played against a team from another country as it was still a ODI. Of course when they played against Australia (senior team) it wasn't as they were both from the same nation.

Although this example doesn't fit this situation completely, it is still relevant as it is an example of a teams 'leftovers' still being credited.

What should matter is the fact that the Essendon Football Club does have a team representing them in that competition, regardless of their status in relation of that club.

This situation could also get even uglier for the likes of Richmond who of course played in the VFA until 1907 before joining the VFL, then had a team representing them in that same competition for a single season in 2000.

What happens if the Coburg / Richmond alliance falls through and we decide to field a standalone team in the VFL again? Will we have stats from 3 distinct periods of time?

Eek!

WCE2000 · May 16, 2001

CJH:

none of the Australia "A" games counted as ODI's.

Roylion · May 16, 2001

Yes, I think you're right WCE2000. For example Simon Katich is credited with only having played only a solitary one day international on 21/1/2000, when he replaced an injured Steve Waugh. Yet he captained Australia A against Zimbabwe, previously. I haven't been able to find any publication either online or offline that suggests that he has officially played more than one limited overs match for Australia. I'd certainly be interested if anyone else can.

WCE2000 · May 16, 2001

ptw · May 16, 2001

it is an interesting point as to whether the status of the "team" should count or the status of the "club". In theory Essendon could have chosen to field whatever team they liked in 1892 but the team would have still represented the EFC.

Also, the stats of the EFC in the VFL do count, they just count from 2000 not earlier.

For the life of me I cannot think of a reason why.....if you make a distinction based on the fact that the EFC team in the VFL now is not the best they can field, then why count their stats at all ?

hmmmmmm

ptw

Same Old's · May 16, 2001

I think it's pretty simple. The senior team does not compete in the VFA/VFL.

Mobbs · May 16, 2001

Wasn't there an Essendon Town with a team in the VFA back in the early 1900s, too? Dunno anything about them, just noticed that there was such a team.

Dan26 · May 16, 2001

ptw,

Essendon existed in the VFA from 1877 to 1896. They then, moved to the AFL (or the VFL as it was called back then)

We are still in that AFL competiton now in 2001. How can you say the current VFL (former VFA) team is the same? You can't count an Essendon VFL premiership in 2001 as our 5th in the VFA-VFL, beause the first 4 (1891-2-3-4)were won by a team that now competes in the AFL.

Obviously the VFL team currently is the reserves team, and really, commom-sense should show it is seperate. In essence, it really should be called "Essendon reserves"

So, if "Essendon reserves" win the 2001 VFL Grand Final, it will be "Essendon reserves" first. Essendon SENIORS won the VFA-VFL in 1891-2-3-4. The current VFL team is not Essendon seniors. It is Essendon reserves. The seniors run around in the AFL!!!

As someoen said above, it is very similar to the Australia A concept in cricket. Australia "A" were not regarded as "Australia". They were different to Ausralia, and even played Australia on the odd occasion.

To be quite honest, I don't like the situation, as I think it promotes confusion. The VFL is a bit of a farce, really. It is partly a reserves competiton, and partly a separte league. It tries to be both, but it is neither. I'd prefer for the reserves to be abolished completely (only a handful of teams have a reserves team anyway), and for the VFL to consist of 12, or 14 seperate clubs, like Wiliamstown, Werribee, Port Melbourne, etc etc. No reserves teams.

WCE2000 · May 16, 2001

Agreed Dan.

I think the VFL should be a competition which has no AFL players in it.

And there should be an AFL reserve grade competition.

The AFL is the only major competition in Australia which doesn't have a reserves competition.

Mobbs · May 17, 2001

Also agree.

Log In or Create New Account

if you don't like clubs and comps debates then ignore this thread !

Club Legend

Norm Smith Medallist

Moderator

Moderator

Norm Smith Medallist

Club Legend

Moderator

Club Legend

Club Legend

Club Legend

A Large Portion, Yes

Premium Platinum

Club Legend

A Large Portion, Yes

if you don't like clubs and comps debates then ignore this thread !

Similar threads