Is the AFL a National comp ? With a National G.F. up for Grabs ?

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Let her rip guys ?

 

[Roylion]

The AFL in my opinion (despite it's name) is still basically an expanded Victorian competition with six interstate sides that make up roughly 38% of the competition. The Grand Final will be held in Melbourne for the forseeable future, even if two non-Victorian teams are playing....as will happen sooner or later. The majority of matches are still played in Victoria as are the majority of finals.

Even the AFL's medium term blueprint for the competition, provides for eight Victorian teams and eight interstate teams. So for at least the next twenty-thirty years the composition of the competition is going to be AT LEAST 50% Victorian. It will probably be more.

I'm not saying it's right or just, but it is the reality.

I'd like to ask again PA1870, at what point do YOU believe the Victorian competition became a national competition???? 1991 perhaps when Adelaide entered the competition? Adelaide's entry brought the non-Victorian component of the competition to 28%. (4 out of 14 teams)

This is why I'm reluctant to say that the expanded VFL (now called the AFL) should seperate their records.

Taking your world league analogy, I can understand what you are saying and to a point I agree with you. However let's say at some point in the future (for arguments sake 2087), that the 16 team AFL admits two new teams NZ and a New Guinean team and changes their name to the WFL (World Football League), three years later in 2090. Is the World Football League which has 88% of the same competition as the previous AFL, the same competition in 2087, or has a new competition been started? Is it a World Competition or an expanded national competition? Is it the same competition in 2090 when it changes it's name, despite the fact that no new teams were admitted and the exact same structure existed as when it was called the AFL the year before.

Your world championship analogy has some substance if at the SAME TIME the competition changed it's name there was a substantial change to the structure of the competition.
If Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond, Brisbane, West Coast, Brisbane, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Fremantle, Canberra and Sydney were joined by Auckland, Port Moresby, Singapore, Tokyo, Capetown and Wellington and six clubs were removed from the national competition well then I would be more willing to agree that a new competition has essentially started and the competition records should begin again. Technically it hasn't of course, but the changes have been so widespread that beginning the records again could be justified. In my view, beginning the VFL/AFL records again as in a new competition cannot be justified, as the change that has taken place has not been widespread enough (just 6 non-Victorian teams), nor has it happened quickly enough (1981-1997) a period of 16 years.

 

[ptw]

this topic has been ongoing for a while....

Roylion,

I will make just 2 points....

1. The degree to which the AFL of today is different to the VFL of 1978, is at least the same as the difference between the VFA of 1986 and the VFL of 1897, in terms of the number of common teams. I know the VFA/VFL thing has a legal difference (ie it actually is a different comp), but in terms of the "feel" of the comp then the difference is at least the same.

2. I actually see the timeframe a being very short. I think in the future we will look back at the 20 or so years from 1985 to 2005 as a revolution rather than an evolution. I think itis only because we are living through it that we see it as an evolution.

anyway....I have posted pages and pages on this topic so I won't go on.

ptw

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by ptw:



anyway....I have posted pages and pages on this topic so I won't go on.

Thankyou. Now if you can only convince your Port compadre to follow your lead........

 

[WCE2000]

What if we use the same analogy to the NRL.

That competition is still 50/50 Sydney/Interstate, but no-one ever disputes its the National (Australian) Rugby League.

So why should people be disputing its the AFL.

BTW, PA1870:

we've got your point that you think it should be a seperate competition. You've told us on a number of occasions you don't agree that it should be the same comp. This is getting to be a bit like Dan and his non finals campaign.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yes, it is the AFL. Yes, it was formed from the VFL. No, the VFL was not disbanded. No, the AFL did not begin as a brand new competition.

Rugby League?
*The Brisbane Broncos joined the NSWRL in 1988.
*Gold Coast, North Qld, Auckland, Western Reds (Perth) joined a few years later.
* The NSWRL changed their name to the ARL to reflect the branching out of the comp.
* The NSWRL administrators continued to administer the ARL.
* When the Super League war broke out and the game split into two factions, the Super League was administered by News Ltd, while the ARL was still administered by the old NSWRL.
* When reconciliation was reached, the NRL was formed to cater for both factions and give a fresh start.

Now, I don't know whether the ARL ended officially and the NRL began or whether there was simply a name change and personnel change. There seems to be more scope to think the NRL is a different comp than the VFL/AFL debate. Having said that the premiership tally for the NSWRL,ARL, NRL and Super League is incorporated.

 

[jod23]

I hate Melbourne