Missing the point on the AFL / VFL thingy

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Thanks for all your replies guys......

Ive had all sorts of answers to my questions,

Ive tried to ask several questions...Some of you think it is the same question...but on reading each one..they are not.



They are all seperate and individual..



One thing I have found in the majority of answers is :



1. Most everybody agrees that the AFL is national.



2. Everybody agrees the AFL came from the VFL



3. Everyone has a confused answer on the VFL being National..most everyone agrees it was always a state based comp that extended, then CHANGED from a VFL into an AFL.



4. most everyone agrees that VFL premierships were Victorian suburban premierships.



5. Nearly every person to a man agrees that the AFL premierships are National...Except when the point of VFL premierships are brought up...then most everyone to a man says

" Noone has ever said an AFL premiership is national "



6. Most everyone wants the suburban Victorian premierships to be called AFL premierships



7. The reason is expediency. and ease of understanding. Yet most everybody agrees the AFL is National and the VFL was Vic based.



8. Most everybody doesnt like the terminology the former VFL when referring to pre AFL Melbourne suburban competition.



9. It is either the VFL or the AFL it cannot be both if it is no longer a Victorian Football league.



10. The argument that it is still made up of mostly Vic teams and the GF is played in Melb...therefore it is still the VFL.



a. Flies in the face of the nationalisation of the game and the former VFL comp.



11. the date of change from VFL to AFL as asked of me is simple...It is the date that the VFL realised it was no longer a state or extended Vic comp..it was the day it acknowledged the VFL was a former part of what was from that moment on a national comp.



12 That day was the day they realised the VFL was essentially suburban and the AFL was National...it was the day they changed their

name to AFL.



13.I keep asking questions on this matter I am not trying to ram an opinion down your throats...Everyone seems confused on the matter even the articulate responses seem to have a highly understood OPINION on the matter, but not a clear cut answer..



The answers even though well articulated are always ambiguous..they are all different.



Which leads me to ask the question in a different way so I can see the picture clearly.



Each time I ask the question...the answer alters from every person who posts an answer.



And most times no matter how well articulated the answers are..it seems to boil down to emotion and a sense of loss of what was...The VFL..noone wants to let go.



Im the one i.e. the person outside of the VFL the person that was asked to follow the National AFL that has been asked to accept in this NEW AFL the history of a suburban Victorian league..



Im the one and thousands of Australians like me who have been told..



"HEY we are the new national league...look were not the VFL were the AFL let us be your premier football product now instead of your old league"..



"Oh, by the way , now that your purchasing our product..tee, hee ,hee ..were really not the AFL a national Football comp...we ..tee, hee ,hee, hee, are really the VFL in disguise.



Well Im sorry guys the VFL died in 1989/90

and the comp became national from then on



I accept the VFL records implicitly and with out predjudice.....



And I also accept the AFL records as of 1990 implicitly and without predjudice.



I follow my club in the AFL...not the VFL/AFL

nor the former VFL... There is no such comp as the VFL/AFL yet we continue to hear this thing bandied about.....



If it is the VFL..then so be it...



If it is the AFL so be it..



I think it is the AFL



so you guys that are hanging on to Victorian suburban traditions and ideals...get over them....



or at the very least dont persecute me...when I talk about My clubs suburban traditions and ideals.



The AFL is a fantastic comp....the VFL was good too..



No more on this issue unless I continue to get Victorian suburban Premierships pushed down my throat under the National leagues name.



PA1870

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

PA i think the problem lies in the fact that there isnt a definitive answer, to me the VFL prior to the name change was the precursor to the National comp we have now, like all things it has evolved over time. Is it a different competition? I think not, its just evolved and grown. What if in 50 years time we have a side out of NZ and one in England, Ireland and Fiji, change our name to the International football League, i still believe that this would be an extension of the present competition as opposed to a new one, but youve heard all these arguments, youve also made some compelling arguments that have been very thoughtful. There is no right or wrong, just opinions, and that is what makes our game great. Cheers

 

[Darky]

Spot on Bubba. You can't really define when the comp was made national. Was it 1987? Was it 1991? If the addition of 1-2 teams makes it national does that mean it becomes a separate competition every time a new team enters? Does that mean a premiership won between 1987-90 (14 teams, 3 non-Vic) is not part of the same set of records as a flag won in 2001?
The whole hypothetical beings up a lot of discussion and a lot of questions, which is good because it gets people thinking and debating different points. But I don't think it needs to have a definitive answer.

 

[Roylion]

Originally posted by Port Adelaide 1870:


And most times no matter how well articulated the answers are..it seems to boil down to emotion and a sense of loss of what was...The VFL..noone wants to let go.

Well Im sorry guys the VFL died in 1989/90

and the comp became national from then on

There is no such comp as the VFL/AFL yet we continue to hear this thing bandied about....

My last comment on the issue also.

PA1870, I disagree. My team is no longer in the VFL/AFL as an independent entity and I now support a non-Victorian team, so it makes little difference to me. For me, there is little emotion or loss attached to whether the VFL is another competition from the present AFL or not.

Why did the VFL die in 1989/1990? Because of a cosmetic name change, where no teams left or entered the existing competition? The same 14 teams were in the competition in 1989 as there were in 1990. Either the competition became national in 1987, when Brisbane and West Coast joined or it did not. It certainly did not become national on the basis that the controlling entity changed it's name.

That controlling entity has decided (quite rightly in my view) that the records of the competition before the name change shall continue to be observed and counted. Therefore the term VFL/AFL, which I personally shall continue to use, is accurate.

 

[The Dutchman!]

The key to the AFL records being permanently linked to their VFL forbearers is that the AFL consistutes a continuation of what is regarded as the highest standard overall league in the country for over 100 years - albeit not necessarily representing the whole country until the last decade or so.

Port Adelaide has a great SA history. But that doesn't mean you can deny that the AFL constitutes a continuation of standard bearer of elite competition set by the VFL - that is why Baker, Moss, Blight, Motley, Polly Farmer, Bradley, Kernahan, Anderson, Weston, Duckworth, Buckenara etc etc all moved across from their home comps to give it a go. The same is not true in reverse - now is it?

That is why, as the end of the day, IMHO, with all due respect, caveat caveat caveat (jeez I'm going to get in trouble for this) Collingwood's 14 flags mean more than Port Adelaide's 30+ flags - because they were achieved at a more distinguished level of competition. This isn't to say that Port's mean nothing - they do.

I would add that yep the AFL WAS probably a cash grab by a near bankrupt VFL to keep its power alive - but this has no bearing on the quality of the respective comps. If you signed up to the AFL as a national comp - yep you got it - but buddy, it DOES come with a VFL history of highest quality in the country... like or lump it.

 

[The Dutchman!]

Just to clarify a tad - I see Port Adelaide "Magpie" record of domination as similar to that of Rangers or Celtic in the Scottish Premier League. IE: Quality, not to smirked at, but not as high a quality comp
as the English Premiership or say, Serie A.

Now I've pissed off the Scots as well. Doh!

 

[CJH]

If I extend my house and rename it, I have not changed addresses!

The VFL was extended and did have it's name changed but it is not a new, separate competition.

------------------
TigerFury.net - Independant Richmond Tigers website

 

[ptw]

Originally posted by The Dutchman!:

That is why, as the end of the day, IMHO, with all due respect, caveat caveat caveat (jeez I'm going to get in trouble for this) Collingwood's 14 flags mean more than Port Adelaide's 30+ flags - because they were achieved at a more distinguished level of competition. This isn't to say that Port's mean nothing - they do.

Dutchman, Dutchman, Dutchman

I was happily reading this post, content that I had made my points over and over again, and therefore there was no need to get involved and repeat ad nauseum what I had already stated. AND YOU GO AND SAY THAT !!!!!

Why don't you insult my grandmother whilst your at it ????

Just remember....you started it.....


Here is why that is a load of bollocks....

Myth No. 1

The VFL was always of a higher standard.

Wrong. ON AVERAGE the vfl was a higher standard...ie more often than not the premier team in the country was Victorian. But not always. If we accept that football talent is randomly distributed and if Vic vs WA vs SA population is roughly in the proportion 3:1:1....then we would expect the football talent to be roughly distributed in that way as well.

Therefore the premier team in the land was probably Victorian 3 years in 5. It was probably S.A. and W.A. 1 year in 5 each.

Myth no. 2 All the best players from S.A. & W.A. went to Victoria

I would generally agree with this from about 1984...even then there were still some excellent players who did not go (eg Michael Aish). I would challenge you to name 5 players from S.A. playing in Victoria in 1960, 1950, 1940...any time pre 1980's. Until then Footy was still pretty much ameteur...all the players worked and you played in the city where your job was located. The thought that in 1923 all the decent players from Adelaide went to Melbourne is fanciful (possible exception of South Melbourne's foreign legion of the 1930's but even that was only a couple of players and it was considered so exceptional....the exception that proves the rule.

So....

if you put both of these together we can safely say that, prior to the mid 80's the best team in the land sort of went Vic, Vic, SA, Vic, WA, Vic, Vic, SA, Vic, WA etc Clearly the VFL was the best competition....and for the majority of the time....but not ALL the time.

This ratio is also borne out in the ratio of times the SA state side beat the Victorian State side (roughly 2 to 1 in Vic favour)....or how often SA club teams would beat Vic club teams when they played.

So.....

up to 1984 say Collingwood won 13 flags and 3 out of 5 times they would have been the best team in the land...therefore about 8 times they were the best team in the country.

up to 1984 Port had won 27 flags and one year in 5 they would have been the best team in the country....ie 5.5 times.

Is collingwood's achievement any better than Port's on the basis of the standard of the comp. NO.

There is an alternate argument surroundin winning a premiership with a given level of resources is the same difficulty regardless of the comp....but I will save you from that unless you choose not to give in.

ptw



[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 22 March 2001).]

 

[ptw]

oh....and a supplementry from ptw if I may....


would you say Port's achievements are better than St Kilda's ????


ptw

 

[The Dutchman!]

Port fans

I think you can detect from how delicately I couched my previous comments on this tread that I have a tremendous amount of respect for what your club has achieved in the SA based league (which is phenomenal) and now in the AFL.

True, off the top of my head I cannot name SA players in the VFL from the 1950s - 1970's in any volume - this may be due to their low number OR it may be that the subject is not mine (or practically anyone's) long suite OR it may be cos I'm in London without a history of the AFL/VFL resource and I'm not Dan24!

Frankly also I can only comment on what I have seen in my lifetime (almost 32 years) and in that time I saw a dominant VFL competition which attracted what appeared to be the majority of quality footballers nationwide.

I also notice that while many non-Vic origin players did very well in the VFL (sometimes dominating eg: Ken Hunter), other dominant players in their local comps were sometimes out of their depth in the VFL/AFL eg: Cornes, Malaxos.

To your statistical foundation argument:

Off the bat I will say that the offered stats are interesting but by no mean persuasive. Putting on my microeconomics hat I would argue that if a National market could be broken down into 5 segments with the dominant player controlling 3 (60%) of those segments then 100% of the time they have virtual monopolist control of that market. Taking your 3:1:1 argument regarding distribution of footy talent, this implies that the VFL had 60% of available talent at any given time all the time, with only 20% of it in SA. Meaning 100% of the time it was the dominant competition. In fact, with interstaters playing in the VFL it had an arguably higher percentage. To claim, as you did, that on the contrary it means only a 3/5's of the time the Vic league was strongest is, well statistically implausible. I'm just drawing the logical conclusion from your ratios here - so pls do not shoot the messenger.

This dominant percentage could have been mitigated if a large (or indeed ANY) proportion of Victorian talent moved to play in either the SA or WA leagues - but, to my knowledge this didn't happen.

Similarly, om this basis Interstate game results do not, in my opinion, reflect much either when you consider that with 60% of the talent, the Vics could presumably field at least 3 competitive teams at any one time to every 1 SA teams. Further, games between top teams arguably ALWAYS meant more to non-VFL teams as they consistuted a chance for recognition for those clubs - like it not VFL premiership clubs did not have to prove anything having just won the VFL flag.

These are all just my opinions. You may not agree with them but they are not mere "bollocks". References to my "stamping on your Grandmother's grave", while amusing, ae not helpful. But as stated I still see Port results in the SA comp as remarkable, admirable and worthy of much respect.

One last thing, I very definitely DID NOT START THIS line of argument - merely reacted to your proposition that the AFL is not intrinsically and inexorably linked to its VFL history which I think is thoroughly incorrect.

As to your very clever question about whose performance I rate higher, Port's or StKilda's ,I don't think the two are overly comparable due to the relative desparity of their respective success rates. They are like apples and oranges. For starters, the Saints have not dominated their comp (albeit the major comp) whereas Port has dominated their's (not the major comp, but a highly competitive one). On the other hand StK has, even if only once, claimed the spot of premiership team in the best standard league in the country. I'm sure, given previous posts, you would argue that Port has done that on many occasions whilst I'd argue they never have but still might in the next few years. Overall I think they both deserve respect but this has very little to do with the subject at hand.

Without prejudice
Dutchy

 

[ptw]

Dutchy

top post.

Still....I don't quite agree (suprise suprise).

I tend to agree with your logic re state games and inter-club matches. Clearly in most cases the SA team or club lifted, and had some great wins....these were often followed by the Vic teams realizing they were not all conquering and putting in a full effort in the next match (VIC v SA in 1989 comes to mind as does the return game in in 1963 played in Adelaide).

I also agree that VIC could probably field a couple of sides which would be competitive with the SA side....essentially although the best players in SA were as good as VIC, the last guy picked in the worst team was probably a much better player in Victoria than in SA.

However....apply that same logic to the SANFL and VFL argument you get a different result.

The SANFL consisted of the very best players from SA (and a few Victorians - Russell Johnston, Rudi Mandermaker, Tim Evans - all joined SA clubs from Victoria and refused offers to go back). Now it is statistically plausible that, although the average standard of the competition was higher in Victoria, from time to time (and I would suggest 3 years in 5 it was the best) the standard of the SANFL at its various peaks (1 in 5) was at least as good.

As an example I would propose the West Indies cricket side. From 1975-1990 the WI dominated world cricket. This was not just a fluke collection of players because it lasted for at least 25 years - more like a dynasty. Now even at their peak it would be difficult to argue that the overall standard of WI cricket was higher than Australian...I am talking Shield and say 1st Grade cricket. The cream from the 1st class cricket in WI however crapped on the cream from Australia....why ?? Simply because the game is played by those on the paddock at the time....not those who did not make the side.

Therefore, I see no statistical reason why, even though the VFL had 60% of the market for talent compared to the SANFL's 20% that the 20% would not beat the 60%.... as the best side in the SANFL only consisted of the 18 players on the park....the cream of the 20%....the rest of the players played for teams who came 12th (hence my St Kilda question).

I will put it another way....

lets say the participation rate in Australian football is 25% (ie 25% of males play the game)....in Victoria that makes say 750,000 people and in SA say 300,000.

The top 200 or so in both states play in the top respective league. Now clearly the 300,000th player in VIC is better than the 300,000th in SA....but we are only comparing the top 200 and even then only the top 50 or so from which the premier team might be selected.

The model only breaks down when the top 200 from SA move to Victoria, and I still contend that this did not happen en masse until the early to mid 1980's.

ptw



[This message has been edited by ptw (edited 22 March 2001).]

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by The Dutchman!:
The key to the AFL records being permanently linked to their VFL forbearers is that the AFL consistutes a continuation of what is regarded as the highest standard overall league in the country for over 100 years - albeit not necessarily representing the whole country until the last decade or so.

Port Adelaide has a great SA history. But that doesn't mean you can deny that the AFL constitutes a continuation of standard bearer of elite competition set by the VFL - that is why Baker, Moss, Blight, Motley, Polly Farmer, Bradley, Kernahan, Anderson, Weston, Duckworth, Buckenara etc etc all moved across from their home comps to give it a go. The same is not true in reverse - now is it?

That is why, as the end of the day, IMHO, with all due respect, caveat caveat caveat (jeez I'm going to get in trouble for this) Collingwood's 14 flags mean more than Port Adelaide's 30+ flags - because they were achieved at a more distinguished level of competition. This isn't to say that Port's mean nothing - they do.

I would add that yep the AFL WAS probably a cash grab by a near bankrupt VFL to keep its power alive - but this has no bearing on the quality of the respective comps. If you signed up to the AFL as a national comp - yep you got it - but buddy, it DOES come with a VFL history of highest quality in the country... like or lump it.

It doesn't matter if the VFL was the elite competition in Australia or not. I'm not sure why you are bringing this in to the argument. It could have been the "worst" league in Australia, for example. But that does not change the fact the the AFL is the continuation of the same competition that started in 1897. It was originally called the VFL and it's now called the AFL.

 

[ptw]

Same Olds

it is a different argument yes...

it is just that the "is the VFL the AFL" thing has been done to death.

ptw

 

[Mudholian]

Originally posted by The Dutchman!:
Just to clarify a tad - I see Port Adelaide "Magpie" record of domination as similar to that of Rangers or Celtic in the Scottish Premier League. IE: Quality, not to smirked at, but not as high a quality comp
as the English Premiership or say, Serie A.

Now I've pissed off the Scots as well. Doh!

Apart from the dominance, the situations are not comparable and not just becasue its fitbah played 20000 km away... Rangers spends 40% of all transfer fees, Celtic 20% and the others the rest. It is totally unfair, a bit like American Baseball on a smaller scale, and only a few Clubs have any chance of winning anything.

Port Magpies achieved their domination in a competition that was always evenly zoned and they were by no means the most affluent club.

They concentrated in instilling a culture of high expectations in young players. In 1988 they achieved their first flag in many years, one of three in a row, with a team comprising 19 players from their own development zone.
Mud

 

[Hawkforce.]

I have no problem with any expansion club comparing themselves to Hawthorn based on their record whilst in the AFL.

Similarly I discount Port's record in the SANFL, and judge them by their record in the highest competition.

By my reckoning that makes it Hawthorn - 1 Flag & 3 Night Cups VS Port 0 Flags 1 Night Cup.

Is this the compromise you guys are looking for?

However

Don't expect to me judge Hawthorn against other Victorian (or formerly Vic) Clubs against their AFL years only... to do so would be asking me to discount over 125 years of history.

Like me telling you to only count Port "Power" and not the Port "Magpies" history.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

In Rugby League terms, Queensland statistically have been the equal of New South Wales in State of Origin football. Qld's best team has often been equal or better than New South Wales' best team. Once you start to think about selecting a second team though, the disparity becomes apparent. NSW could select several sides almost as good as the last, Qld could not field a competitive second side. When Qld has a rebuiding phase, you see record scores against them (as in 2000). The original state clashes (non-origin) used to see Qld get thrashed a majority of the time. Only rarely were they able to pull of an upset. At one point, their own players would compete against them as they were playing the NSW comp. When the origin concept came in (1980), Qld with the memory of being frequently second rate in their minds lifted much more than the NSW players. Because they were competing against the big boys, their motivation was greater. Combined with the influx of 'freak' players (Lewis, Meninga, Boustead, Miles, Langer), much like the dominating era of West Indies cricket, the Qld side went through a purple patch. It has to be remembered that a lot of their players (pre-Broncos) had their skills honed in the NSW competition. After years of being beaten by their more inspired enemy, NSW was stirred into action and now take the competition more seriously. This has resulted in them dominating the 90's and basically squarely what was a very unbalanced ledger. The NSW comp has the corporate sponsorship and media support that Brisbane could not offer its own comp and in realising that the Broncos were born. Now, the NSWRL may not have been exactly flush with funds and the Brisbane comp was very very proud. I remember Brisbane media comparing the two comps with a Qld slant. I also remember the Rugby League Week (official) doing a virtual match up of the NSWRL premiers (Canterbury) and the QRL premiers (Wynnum Manly) one year and concluding that Wynnum Manly was the codes strongest team at that time. It happens, but is by no means a rule of thumb.

The fact is the league world recognised the NSWRL as the premier competition by virtue of numbers and the ever competitive Queenslanders, tired of having their efforts in their local comps downplayed, were anxious to prove themselves. Hell, Wally Lewis is one of, if not the best player to pull on a boot and even when he was Australian captain was considered to be unproven because he had not played in the NSWRL.

Many locals lament the state of the Brisbane domestic comp now. In fact the once proud Brisbane clubs (that still exist) are now feeder clubs for the NRL. They might not like it, but all Queenslanders know where the NRL came from and realise that Qld lost the battle of the domestic leagues when the Broncos were born. They know that Brisbane as the dominant side of the nineties do not lead the premiership tally. They know that statistically though, on average, the Broncos are the best club in the NRL and the benchmark. That knowledge seems to be enough for them. I have not heard of any major debate by Brisbane fans suggesting the count should be restarted. And what of Newcastle, they too are relative latecomers to the league and have won a flag, Penrith too, joined in 30 odd years ago and have won a flag. Now they fall under the banner of a state comps qualification, but Newcastle joined under a national expansion. Auckland joined under the ARL, if they win a flag, should they be miffed that they can't consider their flag as an Oceania flag? What if the name was changed overnight to the ANZRL and Auckland won this years comp. Should they consider themselves the best team in the league overall in history and ignore their miserable failures to date?

There are precedents for all this. Just as Brisbane based league fans can choose to ignore the NRL and support their somewhat depleted local sides, SA and WA fans can still support their SANFL and Westar sides. Unfortunately any fan of a VFL club that does not want to lose their history would not have that luxury as their senior side only exists in the AFL. Since when does coming from a statistically stronger comp that recruits interstate teams entitle that club to be disadvantaged in comparison to teams from ongoing state comps?

 

[ptw]

Hawkforce

I assume you meant to say 76 years not 125 as that is the time Hawthorn have been playing in the VFL ?

ptw

p.s. ODN I will respond once I can give your post the time it deserves.

ptw

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Originally posted by ptw:
Hawkforce

I assume you meant to say 76 years not 125 as that is the time Hawthorn have been playing in the VFL ?


ptw

A little slip in the argument there. On the basis of this argument, wouldn't it be 65 years in the VFL and 11 years in the totally separate AFL??? See it is a bit hard to put everything in a nice little package when you are talking history. Those that do not like the wording VFL/AFL being used as there is no such name also do not like the AFL name being referred to in reference to anything pre-1990. We all know when the name change occurred. Nobody is really thinking we won pre-AFL flags against the interstate teams in a National competition. If we want to bring up statistics about our teams performance in 104 years of football, it is a little inconvenient to break it up into two time periods all the time. If the AFL want to do so, then so be it. I will follow suit.


------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[Dan24.]

Oh to hell with it, I'm going to write a post.

PA1870, the thing that annoys me the most, is that you refer to Essendon's 16 premierships in the AFL as split 14/2. You say :"Oh, but Essendon won 14 in the state based comp and 2 in the new AFL"

You can't split the premierships up like that because they have been achieved in the SAME competition. In Essendon's overall history they have won 4 VFA premierships and 16 AFL premierships. So, when talking about Essendons overall history you can split the flags up 16/4. You have to split them, because they were won in two completely separate competitons.

You need to understand, but more importantly ACCEPT that the current AFL is exactly the same competiton as the VFL. Yes, it expanded, yes it is now national, and yes it is of a higher standard than ut used to be, but these factors are all irrelevant. It is still the SAME comp, and when compiling statistical information, this is the only relevant point.

It doesn't matter if the comp "changed" its name, or admitted new teams, or whatever. All that matters is that it's the same comp.

The problem with you, is that you think that Essendons premierships are referred to as national premierships. I have never heard of them referred to as this. If a team wins the premiership, they are just called "AFL premiers". Essendon, for example has WON the current competiton 16 times, as has Carlton. The competiton in which all the clubs currently compete (which has been running for 105 years) has been won 16 times by both Essendon and Carlton.

Yes, some of those flags were won in a state based comp, and now it is national. Some of the flags were won when there were only 8 teams, and some of them were won when there were 12 teams. BUT, it is the same comp, so the statistical records stand...... and rightly so. The records will stand until the competiton disbands and a new comp starts (this will hopefully never happen)

If Essendon premierships are split 14/2 according to you, why not split them 2/4/7/1/1 ? Essendon won 2 flags when the competiton was 8 teams, 4 flags when it was 9 teams, 7 flags when it was 12 teams, 1 when it was 15 teams, and 1 when it was 16 teams. According to you, we should just change the comp and treat it as a BRAND NEW COMP whenever a new team is admitted.

It is stupid and impractical to do this. The total flags won by ANY team in the comp are counted from 1897, and Essendon and Carlton have won 16. It is acknowledged, however that the Crows, who have been in the comp 10 years have the best premiership strike rate with 2 in 10 years.

Just because the comp is national, doesn't mean it's a new comp. We are all from Australia, we are all the same aren't we? Take down the state borders and Adelaide is just another town, as is Perth. The "principle" of bringing an Adelaide or Perth team to the VFL (and hence re-naiming it the AFL) is no different to adding another suburban team. The only difference is that Adelaide and Perth are further away in distance. But, we are all Australians, so the principle is the same. Adelaide and Perth are just more towns that were added to an already existing competiton. Forget the fact, that they are not in Victoria. Look at Astrlia as one big country with no state borders, and perhaps you will understand.

So, yes, new teams have been added, the name change was made to accomodate this, and the comp looks vastly different to what it did a century ago. But, no matter how much you complain, the AFL is the SAME comp as the VFL. The VFL itself did not cease to exist. Only the "name" VFL ceased to exist. The competiton itself continues as it always has.

Premierships in this competiton since 1897 have never been called national premierships. The team that has won the premiership has just been the premiers of that comp. I have never clainmed that Essendon premierships when the comp was called the VFL were national premierships. All I have ever said is that Essendon has won the current competiton (regardless of the standard, structure, and name of the competiton) 16 times.

One day, a new superleague style comp may be set up to rival the AFL. All the powerful teams could join that comp. In this case, the AFL would become a less prestigious league. The team that wins the AFL premiership wouldn't be the best team in the country. The best team would be the team that wins the new super-league premiership in that new comp. But the AFL comp would still continue and the records of the AFL would still go on, even though the standard would be less.

The standard of the SANFL has changed over the last 10 years (for the worse) but any premierships won in that comp continue to add to it's 123 year old history as a competiton.

So, complain all you want. I am not biased when it comes to this, I am just logical. For statistical record keeping the premierships won in any comp will continue to be added. If a competiton has a name change or admits new teams, this does NOT require that a new competiton be started and records re-started. If one were to talk about Essendons premierships, all you need to know, is that they have won the current competiiton (which has had 2 names and has admitted new teams as the years have gone by) 16 times.

P.S. When I say Essendon ahs won 16 AFL premierships, I am just using the current name of the competiton. We have discussed this before. If you change your name tomorrow to "Bill" and someone asks you : "How old are you, Bill", your response would be :"I'm 40". You don't say : Oh, I'm one day old, because I changed my name yesterday. Sorry, but you don't know me. I'm a brand new person now". Similarly, when referring to past premierships won in the current competiton (regardless of the standard of the comp), we use the CURRENT name for the purposes of logic and sensibility.

 

[ptw]

Originally posted by The Old Dark Navy's:
A little slip in the argument there. On the basis of this argument, wouldn't it be 65 years in the VFL and 11 years in the totally separate AFL??? See it is a bit hard to put everything in a nice little package when you are talking history. Those that do not like the wording VFL/AFL being used as there is no such name also do not like the AFL name being referred to in reference to anything pre-1990. We all know when the name change occurred. Nobody is really thinking we won pre-AFL flags against the interstate teams in a National competition. If we want to bring up statistics about our teams performance in 104 years of football, it is a little inconvenient to break it up into two time periods all the time. If the AFL want to do so, then so be it. I will follow suit.

well yes and no.

I myself am not arguing that the VFL and the AFL are seperate competitions, I think they should be, but clearly they are the same legal comp. I also am not hung up on the name AFL applying for 105 years....it is easier.

The only concern I have is that by doing so it in some way elevates the achievements of the Vic teams pre 1990 and in doing so diminishes the achievements of the non Vic teams.

My little post to Hawkforce was intended to be more than a simple question. How much of Hawthorn's history "counts". Dutchy originally said that Collingwood's achievements meant more than Port's. He even almost said that St Kilda's meant more in that they had won the premiership in the "highest" comp once and Port had "never done it".

My points in this post have not been around the "is the VFL & the AFL the same thing"...I am sick of that debate....more so...if they are seperate what do the achievements of Port in the SANFL or Hawthorn in the VFA mean ? Why are they not comparable, or is it at all possible to compare ? Hence my Port has won 5.5 national flags and Collingwood have won 8....gives a point of comparison.

ptw

 

[ptw]

you lasted 24 hours longer than I thought you would Dan !!!

welcome back !

ptw

 

[RogerC]

Fascinating topic. But we all seem to be saying in a long winded way something that to me is very simple. The current AFL has 16 teams, 10 of which were exactly the same teams under the VFL. Of the six other teams, four were new creations, one was a relocation of a Victorian team, and one previously existed under a similar (but not the same) name.

It isn't as if the separate leagues merged into one national competition. Or even that the existing competition was dissolved so as to create a new one. When the name changed, the administration and the teams remained the same.

The AFL flows naturally from the VFL. Teams like Port Adelaide, etc, can date other teams' achievements in this league from whatever date they like, but this is the same league as the VFL. I could compare Hawthorn's flags only against those won from 1925, but I don't see the point.

I don't know if South Australians would take kindly to, for instance, Collingwood joining their league next year and claiming all their flags in the VFL as SANFL flags - or saying that the SANFL is now a national competition, so all SANFL clubs go back to zero premierships. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be the point the Port Adelaide fans are making for the AFL.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

 

[ptw]

Roger

yes, sort of...

I am not saying that Port have won 34 AFl flags...they have won 0 AFL flags.

If collingwood joined the SANFL would they come with 14 flags ? No....they would start with 0 SANFL flags.

Would the SANFL stats start again ? No. not with just one club....6 ? maybe....but that is not really my point.

But, if collingwood did join then who is the more successful club...Collingwood or Norwood ? Not just success in the SANFL as clubs change comps all the time, but it is still interesting to compare clubs.

I think we all get a bit hung up on the league our clubs are playing in. For me ALL of Port Adelaide's history "counts" we do not start from scratch just because we change comps. We have zero AFL flags....but if the question was...who is the most successful club....then in my mind the answer is Port.

ptw

 

[The Dutchman!]

Actually PTW I didn't make a judgment call either way on StK V P.Magpies and left it up (in classic fence sitter mode) to once's subjective view of what was more important - ie: the 1 successful moon shot or putting up 30 successful sputniks (just my view so to speak). So, with all due respect, pls don't quote me out of context or incorrectly mate.

Same Olds, the reason the ongoing standard of competition matters (over and above the legal entity argument) is on a purely philosophical and emotion level.

If the SANFL had been the stronger comp and then for some reason folded on say financial grounds and was swept up into the VFL/AFL remit, I think that Port fans, regardless of the legal status of the comp, would consider their pre-AFL flags of a higher standing - and I think I'd feel the need to acknowledge that too (even as a Vic) if that were the case. But it didn't happen that way (thank God).

So, to recap - the AFL is unquestionably the name of "league previously known as VFL (Prince style)". But IMHO more importantly (and only on an emotive ideological level) so to is its reputation passed on for the highest level of comp in Australia.

Pretty sure ODN's post is NSW v QLD RL restatement of my earlier argument re: sheer volume of talent and weight of competition quality.

I can understand SA and WA fans feeling disrespected by the rest of us placing VFL/AFL flags on another level - it would annoy me if my team has won 30 odd flags that were - notsomuch disregardes but attributed slightly less import. But in joining the AFL that is what you folks have to deal with. That said, I don't really have that much of a prob with interstaters doing recent comparisions since their cub joined - maybe the long term stats are only really helpful for comparisons of success against follow VFL incombants. I think Hawkforce suggested this earlier.

To to lay it on with a trowl that means:

Top 6 VFL/AFL:

16: Ess, Carl
14: Coll
12: Melb
10: Rich & Haw? (that number right?)

Top 6 since name change:

2: Ess, WCE, Adel, Nth
1: Carl, Coll, Haw

Still an interesting thread this.

 

[Port Adelaide 1870]

Originally posted by ptw:



I myself am not arguing that the VFL and the AFL are seperate competitions, I think they should be, but clearly they are the same legal comp. I also am not hung up on the name AFL applying for 105 years....it is easier.

The only concern I have is that by doing so it in some way elevates the achievements of the Vic teams pre 1990 and in doing so diminishes the achievements of the non Vic teams.

My little post to Hawkforce was intended to be more than a simple question. How much of Hawthorn's history "counts". Dutchy originally said that Collingwood's achievements meant more than Port's. He even almost said that St Kilda's meant more in that they had won the premiership in the "highest" comp once and Port had "never done it".


I am also very sick of the debate !!!!!
I agree with ptw..that is by giving the VFL premierships AFL status it elevates their status from suburb to National...and deflates SANFL premierships

I am totally sick of the VFL/AFL debate as noone seems to be able to rationalise the above mentioned.

PA1870