Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

Remove this Banner Ad

greatwhiteshark said:
No you are, I have never asked for those two leagues records to be included in the VFL/AFL .
I am saying again there is a set of records above the VFL/AFL that should be very much publicised and talked about openly by the AFL as custodians of the sport.
Click to expand...
You've argued that anyone who doesn't recognise SANFL and WAFL records together alongside VFL/AFL records must be Victorian and/or hate the history of the sport, and that the AFL commentators need to include achievements from other leagues when discussing records because otherwise they're hiding them.

It's not on the Australian Football League to publish records of other leagues, they're free to do that themselves. Had the three leagues merged together to form the AFL you might have gotten your wish, unfortunately that didn't happen and the record books reflect that reality.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

greatwhiteshark said:
If you can’t recognise that the WAFL and SANFL were top tier leagues the same as the VFL then it’s pointless continuing to discuss. Clearly the sky is not blue in Victoria.
Click to expand...

Yes, and SANFL and WAFL records will continue to be recognised and celebrated. Craig Bradley left one league to go to another state to play on another.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Sentinel said:
You've argued that anyone who doesn't recognise SANFL and WAFL records together alongside VFL/AFL records must be Victorian and/or hate the history of the sport, and that the AFL commentators need to include achievements from other leagues when discussing records because otherwise they're hiding them.

It's not on the Australian Football League to publish records of other leagues, they're free to do that themselves. Had the three leagues merged together to form the AFL you might have gotten your wish, unfortunately that didn't happen and the record books reflect that reality.
Click to expand...

The AFL are custodians of the sport . If the AFL is asked who has won the most premierships at the highest level of the sports history then their answer should be Port Adelaide. And it should also be your answer if someone asked you.
It is not complicated for anyone other than Victorians for some reason.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
The AFL are custodians of the sport . If the AFL is asked who has won the most premierships at the highest level of the sports history then their answer should be Port Adelaide. And it should also be your answer if someone asked you.
It is not complicated for anyone other than Victorians for some reason.
Click to expand...
So what year exactly do you think the SANFL and WAFL stopped being at the same tier level as the now AFL? Don't say 1990 because that was nothing more than a name change.

How many of Port Adelaide's 1989, 1990 and 1998 premierships get included in this total for the club?
 
Freo won 11 WAFA premierships in the 1880s and 1890s which takes the total Freo club tally to 56.
Time to update the signature if VFL House lets this through.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
No you are, I have never asked for those two leagues records to be included in the VFL/AFL .
I am saying again there is a set of records above the VFL/AFL that should be very much publicised and talked about openly by the AFL as custodians of the sport.
Click to expand...

The AFL already includes players who plied their trade in far inferior competitions in the hall of fame and even as legends … which I believe is a bit of a joke.

It’s like including Jamie Siddons in the hall of fame of Australian cricket. The SANFL and WAFL were not in the same ballpark for overall league quality as the VFL/AFL.

And don’t mistake this for saying there were not excellent players from those leagues, there absolutely were. But the depth of quality was very poor compared to VFL and thus much much easier to dominate.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Noidnadroj said:
The AFL already includes players who plied their trade in far inferior competitions in the hall of fame and even as legends … which I believe is a bit of a joke.

It’s like including Jamie Siddons in the hall of fame of Australian cricket. The SANFL and WAFL were not in the same ballpark for overall league quality as the VFL/AFL.

And don’t mistake this for saying there were not excellent players from those leagues, there absolutely were. But the depth of quality was very poor compared to VFL and thus much much easier to dominate.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

You clearly know very little about the WAFL and SANFL.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
If you can’t recognise that the WAFL and SANFL were top tier leagues the same as the VFL then it’s pointless continuing to discuss. Clearly the sky is not blue in Victoria.
Click to expand...

Was the VFA a top tier league? There are more than a few people who argue it was at least the equivalent of - if not stronger than - the VFL at times between the wars.

There was another period when some said the Federal Football League in Melbourne genuinely had an argument to rival the VFA.

The WAFL and SANFL were top tier leagues on a geographic basis, that’s all we know.

Here’s a random moment in time - 1950, just as the baby boom started

Vic population 1.3m
SA population ~500k
WA population 311k

The WAFL was “top tier” alongside the VFL and VFA, with more than 4x the population? Pretty hard to believe. Is the A League or the Swedish or the Greek League top tier alongside the Premier League?

The point is, nobody knows. Trying to conflate different leagues is impossible. No matter which way you think it makes sense in your head, there’s always other angles that say the opposite.

Leagues count their own achievements. Clubs count their own across multiple leagues. Trying to have some definitive “list” by picking and choosing certain leagues and excluding others is just stupid - including Colin Carter’s Geelong nuffy attempt.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Why is it so hard for everyone at the AFL HQ to sort out, it’s pretty simple to sort them out by “competitions” :rolleyes:

Simply, the AFL should only count as premierships in the AFL competition era and not VFL/SANFL or any other league before that 1990 season.

If anything, the VIC teams should count the following premierships in these competitions separately, similarly to how Port Adelaide count their 36 premierships:

Victorian Football Season (1870 - 1876)

Victorian Football Association (1877 - 1896)

Victorian Football League (1897 - 1989)

Australian Football League (1990-)

As a result, the following clubs would have won x amount of premierships in the “AFL” era, and not in the VFL or other competition period, as of the beginning of 1990:
  1. Hawthorn - 5 premierships (91/08/13/14/15)
  2. Geelong - 4 premierships (07/09/11/22)
  3. West Coast - 4 premierships (92/94/06/18)
  4. Brisbane Lions - 3 premierships (01/02/03)
  5. Richmond - 3 premierships (17/19/20)
  6. Adelaide - 2 premierships (97/98)
  7. Collingwood - 2 premierships (90/10)
  8. Essendon - 2 premierships (93/00)
  9. North Melbourne - 2 premierships (96/99)
  10. Sydney - 2 premierships (05/12)
  11. Carlton - 1 premierships (95)
  12. Melbourne - 1 premiership (21)
  13. Port Adelaide - 1 premiership (04)
  14. Western Bulldogs - 1 premiership (16)
  15. Brisbane Bears - 0 premierships
  16. Fitzroy Lions - 0 premierships
  17. Fremantle - 0 premierships
  18. Gold Coast - 0 premierships
  19. Greater Western Sydney - 0 premierships
  20. St. Kilda - 0 premierships
It should be as easier as that for the AFL to sort out but this will never happen due to reasons out of my control :huh:
 
Cubs2Lions said:
Why is it so hard for everyone at the AFL HQ to sort out, it’s pretty simple to sort them out by “competitions” :rolleyes:

Simply, the AFL should only count as premierships in the AFL competition era and not VFL/SANFL or any other league before that 1990 season.

If anything, the VIC teams should count the following premierships in these competitions separately, similarly to how Port Adelaide count their 36 premierships:

Victorian Football Season (1870 - 1876)

Victorian Football Association (1877 - 1896)

Victorian Football League (1897 - 1989)

Australian Football League (1990-)

As a result, the following clubs would have won x amount of premierships in the “AFL” era, and not in the VFL or other competition period, as of the beginning of 1990:
  1. Hawthorn - 5 premierships (91/08/13/14/15)
  2. Geelong - 4 premierships (07/09/11/22)
  3. West Coast - 4 premierships (92/94/06/18)
  4. Brisbane Lions - 3 premierships (01/02/03)
  5. Richmond - 3 premierships (17/19/20)
  6. Adelaide - 2 premierships (97/98)
  7. Collingwood - 2 premierships (90/10)
  8. Essendon - 2 premierships (93/00)
  9. North Melbourne - 2 premierships (96/99)
  10. Sydney - 2 premierships (05/12)
  11. Carlton - 1 premierships (95)
  12. Melbourne - 1 premiership (21)
  13. Port Adelaide - 1 premiership (04)
  14. Western Bulldogs - 1 premiership (16)
  15. Brisbane Bears - 0 premierships
  16. Fitzroy Lions - 0 premierships
  17. Fremantle - 0 premierships
  18. Gold Coast - 0 premierships
  19. Greater Western Sydney - 0 premierships
  20. St. Kilda - 0 premierships
It should be as easier as that for the AFL to sort out but this will never happen due to reasons out of my control :huh:
Click to expand...

OK well if it needs to be similar to Port Adelaide... they can't really count the 36 SANFL flags can they?

Not when it was actually

SAFA (5)
SAFL (4)
SANFL (27)

Or maybe they can... it was just a name change. Fair enough.

So name changes don't matter?

Why the 1990 cutoff then? 1989 and 1990 in the VFL/AFL were exactly the same except for the names.

As much as it makes me laugh (because it's Carlton and Hawthorn), that anybody would try to claim that the 1987, 88 and 89 flags were any different to the 1990 flag is just absurd.
 
Cubs2Lions said:
Why is it so hard for everyone at the AFL HQ to sort out, it’s pretty simple to sort them out by “competitions” :rolleyes:

Simply, the AFL should only count as premierships in the AFL competition era and not VFL/SANFL or any other league before that 1990 season.

If anything, the VIC teams should count the following premierships in these competitions separately, similarly to how Port Adelaide count their 36 premierships:

Victorian Football Season (1870 - 1876)

Victorian Football Association (1877 - 1896)

Victorian Football League (1897 - 1989)

Australian Football League (1990-)

As a result, the following clubs would have won x amount of premierships in the “AFL” era, and not in the VFL or other competition period, as of the beginning of 1990:
  1. Hawthorn - 5 premierships (91/08/13/14/15)
  2. Geelong - 4 premierships (07/09/11/22)
  3. West Coast - 4 premierships (92/94/06/18)
  4. Brisbane Lions - 3 premierships (01/02/03)
  5. Richmond - 3 premierships (17/19/20)
  6. Adelaide - 2 premierships (97/98)
  7. Collingwood - 2 premierships (90/10)
  8. Essendon - 2 premierships (93/00)
  9. North Melbourne - 2 premierships (96/99)
  10. Sydney - 2 premierships (05/12)
  11. Carlton - 1 premierships (95)
  12. Melbourne - 1 premiership (21)
  13. Port Adelaide - 1 premiership (04)
  14. Western Bulldogs - 1 premiership (16)
  15. Brisbane Bears - 0 premierships
  16. Fitzroy Lions - 0 premierships
  17. Fremantle - 0 premierships
  18. Gold Coast - 0 premierships
  19. Greater Western Sydney - 0 premierships
  20. St. Kilda - 0 premierships
It should be as easier as that for the AFL to sort out but this will never happen due to reasons out of my control :huh:
Click to expand...
Good idea if you only want to count premierships from when the VFL changed its name officially to the AFL when Adelaide entered the competition. But what’s so special about the nome change? what about counting the period from when West Coast and Brisbane entered the VFL as that made it a (almost) national competition? Or when South Melbourne relocated to Sydney and VFL expanded beyond Victoria?
 
MelbourneGWS said:
Good idea if you only want to count premierships from when the VFL changed its name officially to the AFL when Adelaide entered the competition. But what’s so special about the nome change? what about counting the period from when West Coast and Brisbane entered the VFL as that made it a (almost) national competition? Or when South Melbourne relocated to Sydney and VFL expanded beyond Victoria?
Click to expand...
The VFL was renamed the AFL ahead of the 1990 season, Adelaide only entered the competition in 1991. There was no change to how 'national' the competition was between 1989 and 1990 besides the renaming so it's an arbitrary cut off point.

The AFL is simply the VFL renamed. A competition which has evolved over the years, but a continuous one nonetheless.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
You clearly know very little about the WAFL and SANFL.
Click to expand...

Let’s compare lists. ‘Top-tier’ VFL footballers who left to go and play in the SANFL/WAFL/TASSIE leagues. And the ‘reverse’.

Now let’s compare another list …. since the inception of the National draft (late-1980’s), how many draftees have come from each state. Every year without exception Victorians make up the lion’s share of draftees.

Then we can consider respective state populations of Aussie Rules dominated states of SA, WA and VIC.

There’s no shame in admitting the VFL was a far superior standard of competition to the SANFL or WAFL. Any logical analysis of player movement, population and now draftees state of origin confirms this.

So I’ve got no qualms in admitting there was a selection of outstanding footballers through the years who never ventured into Victoria. But to elevate some of those who never played in what was clearly the top-tier competition into the HOF or even as legends has never sat well with me when you look at the list of some others who’ve still yet to be elevated. (Eg Garry Lyon)


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Sentinel said:
The VFL was renamed the AFL ahead of the 1990 season, Adelaide only entered the competition in 1991. There was no change to how 'national' the competition was between 1989 and 1990 besides the renaming so it's an arbitrary cut off point.

The AFL is simply the VFL renamed. A competition which has evolved over the years, but a continuous one nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Agree, that the current AFL is a continuation of the VFL that was started in 1897.
 
Still not have all the answers I want from what I read of book so far but it certainly makes me want to know more and more about the period of first quarter of century of the 1900's which as time goes on will be harder to get first hand information on because none of the people from the period are still alive. What the book has revealed that I never knew until now was it really does appear that from the split at end of 1896 season, the VFA does not seem to want to acknowledge the history before 1897 because they been made to feel inferior and football outcasts by the 8 clubs that left to create the VFL from 1897 onwards. As all the premierships before 1897 were won from those 8 clubs that left, it only would highlight the clubs that left were above them, so to speak, and therefore the VFL above the VFA. Mind you at end of 1897 it seems they did actually ask to return to the fold with the other 8 clubs as a division two but the VFL board at time rejected it. Then the VFA had to dust themselves off again and move on for 1898 season to try to make the VFA compete with the VFL in the footy community.

Now at the same time the VFL was simply listing the premierships each season in their own publications and press as just more seasons for their clubs that had been playing together for premierships for decades already. I already knew before looking at book that if you go back to weekly Football Records magazine for each round, (can be found online from state library), in the period leading up to 1920's you would see they listed the premierships, runners up and third each season from 1870 to their present VFL season in either last edition of the season or first round edition. But this changed as 1920's moves on and the book does suggest this is due to bitter politics of the VFA and VFL in this period. I suspected that but still wanted the book to shed some further light on. It not added more definitive events that triggered this change but it certainly enhanced my curiosity more on what happened back then for both the league and the association to both try to ignore the pre-1897 stuff from mid 1920's onwards. Certainly 1925 when three VFA clubs left to join the VFL would have been an incredible blow to the VFA after already losing Richmnd in 1908.
The VFL probably was pissed off the VFA that was left just did not roll over and die so by no longer listing the 1870 to 1896 premierships in their publications they did not have to respect the VFA of their time that was pushing on even after a break for a few seasons in first world war. It just makes me wonder about the whole atmosphere of the times those people lived in and what effect that could have on their thinking in those times. The book makes no mention of the wider world politics but I wonder if the rise of Socialism and Communism and paranoia of those times had some kind of subconscious effect on the VFL board at time to look down on the VFA like they some type of Communist football body in their view.
With first world war and Russian Revolution of the Bolsheviks and then become the Communist in the Soviet Union as 1920's developed it just seems a very interesting period to be a fly on the wall at time in the football clubs and boards of these times.

Have about sixty more pages to read so I hope a few more answers show up that I really want answered.
 
Last edited:
footyfan1978 said:
Still not have all the answers I want from what I read of book so far but it certainly makes me want to know more and more about the period of first quarter of century of the 1900's which as time goes on will be harder to get first hand information on because none of the people from the period are still alive. What the book has revealed that I never knew until now was it really does appear that from the split at end of 1896 season, the VFA does not seen to want to acknowledge the history before 1897 because they been made to feel inferior and football outcasts by the 8 clubs that left to create the VFL from 1897 onwards. As all the premierships before 1897 were won from those 8 clubs that left it only would highlight the clubs that left were above them, so to speak and therefore the VFL above the VFA. Mind you at end of 1897 it seems they did actually ask to return to the fold with the other 8 clubs as a division two but the VFL board at time rejected it so VFA had to dust themselves off again and move on from 1898 season to try to make thee VFA a compete with the VFL in the footy community.

Now at the same time the VFL was simply listing the premierships each season in their own publications and press as just more seasons for their clubs that had been playing together for premierships for decades already. I already knew before looking at book that if you go back to weekly Football Records magazine for each round, (can be found online from state library), in the period leading up t0 1920's you would see they listed the premierships, runners up and third each season from 1870 to their present VFL season in either last edition of the season or first round edition. But this changed as 1920's moves on and the book does suggest this is due to bitter politics of the VFA and VFL in this period. I suspected that but still wanted the book to shed some further light on. It not added more definitive events that triggered this change but it certainly enhanced my curiosity more on what happened back then for both the league and the association to both try to ignore the pre-1897 stuff from mid 1920's onwards. Certainly 1925 when three VFA clubs left to join the VFL would have been an incredible blow to the VFA after already losing Richmnd in 1908.
The VFL probably was pissed off the VFA that was left just did not roll over and die so by no longer listing the 1870 to 1896 premierships in their publications they did not have to respect the VFA of their time that was pushing on even after a break for a few seasons in first world war. It just makes me wonder about the whole atmosphere of the times those people lived in and what effect that could have on their thinking in those times. The book makes no mention of the wider world politics but I wonder if the rise of Socialism and Communism and paranoia of those times had some kind of subconscious effect on the VFL board at time to look down on the VFA like they some type of Communist football body in their view.
With first world war and Russian Revolution of the Bolsheviks and then become the Communist in the Soviet Union as 1920's developed it just seems a very interesting period to be a fly on the wall at time in the football clubs and boards of these times.

Have about sixty more pages to read so I hope a few more answers show up that I really want answered.
Click to expand...
Does Carter mention anything about other records from those VFA years?

If you want to include premiership records from pre 1897, you need to also include all other records from those years too, including those of Williamstown, Port Melbourne, Ballarat etc who if his proposal to extend the VFL start date back to 1870 gets up (it obviously won't) will now need to be considered ex-VFL/AFL teams in the same vein as University.
 
Sentinel said:
Does Carter mention anything about other records from those VFA years?
Click to expand...
He does but I am still wondering what exactly is his proposal for all the VFA records which by end of the book I want him to explain what is his intention because I do worry he was part of something that killed off the VFA and he trying to feed on the carcas , so to speak, and not show the due care it deserves in footall history. That the AFL killed off the VFA and then like a cannibal tries to claim some years of it and not care about the rest would piss me off if that is all he intends. The VFA has a whole history from 1877 to 1994. Different eras exist like the era before the split at end of 1896. The era between 1897 to end of season 1924 where four more clubs went to the VFL. The era of trying to compete with VFL each Saturday after that , the two division expansion of VFA and the Sunday era of VFA footy it had for it's own for a number of decades before the VFL had to grab that off it too.
 
footyfan1978 said:
Still not have all the answers I want from what I read of book so far but it certainly makes me want to know more and more about the period of first quarter of century of the 1900's which as time goes on will be harder to get first hand information on because none of the people from the period are still alive. What the book has revealed that I never knew until now was it really does appear that from the split at end of 1896 season, the VFA does not seen to want to acknowledge the history before 1897 because they been made to feel inferior and football outcasts by the 8 clubs that left to create the VFL from 1897 onwards. As all the premierships before 1897 were won from those 8 clubs that left it only would highlight the clubs that left were above them, so to speak and therefore the VFL above the VFA. Mind you at end of 1897 it seems they did actually ask to return to the fold with the other 8 clubs as a division two but the VFL board at time rejected it so VFA had to dust themselves off again and move on from 1898 season to try to make thee VFA a compete with the VFL in the footy community.

Now at the same time the VFL was simply listing the premierships each season in their own publications and press as just more seasons for their clubs that had been playing together for premierships for decades already. I already knew before looking at book that if you go back to weekly Football Records magazine for each round, (can be found online from state library), in the period leading up t0 1920's you would see they listed the premierships, runners up and third each season from 1870 to their present VFL season in either last edition of the season or first round edition. But this changed as 1920's moves on and the book does suggest this is due to bitter politics of the VFA and VFL in this period. I suspected that but still wanted the book to shed some further light on. It not added more definitive events that triggered this change but it certainly enhanced my curiosity more on what happened back then for both the league and the association to both try to ignore the pre-1897 stuff from mid 1920's onwards. Certainly 1925 when three VFA clubs left to join the VFL would have been an incredible blow to the VFA after already losing Richmnd in 1908.
The VFL probably was pissed off the VFA that was left just did not roll over and die so by no longer listing the 1870 to 1896 premierships in their publications they did not have to respect the VFA of their time that was pushing on even after a break for a few seasons in first world war. It just makes me wonder about the whole atmosphere of the times those people lived in and what effect that could have on their thinking in those times. The book makes no mention of the wider world politics but I wonder if the rise of Socialism and Communism and paranoia of those times had some kind of subconscious effect on the VFL board at time to look down on the VFA like they some type of Communist football body in their view.
With first world war and Russian Revolution of the Bolsheviks and then become the Communist in the Soviet Union as 1920's developed it just seems a very interesting period to be a fly on the wall at time in the football clubs and boards of these times.

Have about sixty more pages to read so I hope a few more answers show up that I really want answered.
Click to expand...
Thank you for reading the book and posting a summary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IntelligentFish
Gather Round 2024 - Welcome back to South Australia.
Replies
0
Views
218
IntelligentFish
IntelligentFish
Slime Roy
Game Gather Round
Replies
0
Views
154
Slime Roy
Slime Roy
PP34
AFL Looking At 3 Gather Rounds
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
3K
apollo_creed
apollo_creed
Chief
News Round 4 AFL Teams - Gather Round
Replies
1
Views
176
Chief
Chief
PowerfulPies2023
  • Poll
The '' Back to Back '' Crows of 1997/98
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
5K
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
ibd77
Opinion Bringing Back The “Night Time Premiership"
Replies
19
Views
969
jim boy
jim boy
PowerfulPies2023
Carlton are the one to watch out for - They can win The Premiership
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
349
Views
9K
GC2015
GC2015

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top