Proposal to include premierships dating back to 1870 gathering pace

[Demonic Ascent]

No, You simply misunderstood what I meant by four left in 1912.
13 clubs of 1896 in VFA and in 1912 , nine of them are over in the VFL which leaves only 4 left from 1896 seasons in VFA , that not moved over to the VFL at that point. I did not mean the VFA was only playing a four team league in 1912.

Ok I got ya. Sorry for the confusion

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Why do we need any comparison to other competitions? What's the relevance here?

We're talking about VFL/AFL history, not the history of Australian rules football, and in any case ranking 'success' of various clubs is not the aim. At the end of the day there will always be debates about that.

The aim is to clarify when the history of the VFL/AFL competition should start (which itself is a very dumb exercise only discussed due to one person's self-serving crusade), it matters not what different people think about the so called worth of a premiership was 100 years ago compared to now, nor does it matter if someone thinks the SANFL was a better competition in the 1940s or whatever.

and again, the issue of the AFL as a competition, contradicting its role as Custodian of the Game.
Not your fault, not mine, just a competition self-serving it’s own agenda (and by their silence, you know they tacitly support this “crusade“) as it further promotes its comp at the expense of the game’s history.

 

[footyfan1978]

I finished all the chapters. There is an Appendix section I will look through too.
The book is a long way from answering questions I had before I purchased it. It brings up more questions than answers for me and even brought forward some surprises I did not know. I certainly never knew the VFA itself basically turned its back on the history of seasons before the split. I also never knew the first 300 game player of our game is someone I never really knew which brings weight to why he picked up a baton about this pre-1897 era of the clubs that founded this league. It ridiculous did not know that before.

I find the book is a bit cumbersome in how Coln Carter present his thoughts. At times some of it is confusing and I think there would be much more skilled people that can do the material justice and make it way more clear in writing. At times it seems he is talking about the competition history and other times the sports history which makes it confusing to see consistency in some of his points. I think a retired journalist like Mike Sheahan would do a much better job as he would be more balanced and just a more skilled writer. Sheahan actually played in the VFA himself so I kind of wish he had wrote a book about this than Carter. Still, as cumbersome as the book is, the content itself was well worth looking at. He annoys me at time in the book. When he just says the date for league starting in 1897 is just Wrong it just comes across as arrogant and out of touch in that his view should be the end of it. The league starting date is 1897. That is a fact. The reality that the clubs that founded the league in 1897 were playing together in many seasons before that of football competition and premierships does not make the league starting date change to earlier period. He is absolutely right those seasons should be fully recognised as the first seasons of football competition between the clubs that started the league.
I just think he misses the importance that these founding clubs started the first football seasons off and then started the VFA and then that was split into two leagues of VFA and VFL with one being treated as the outcast that would eventually be killed off at end of 1994 by the league itself. That part of the story is just as important as the 1870 to 1896 that been horribly neglected but it not the focus of his book.

 

[Stabby McGee]

An under 16's team would beat both the 1909 Carlton and South Melbourne sides. I mean the skills are awful.

And the Costa Rica militia would beat the best Rome had to offer...

You do realise that it's about beating those that you play, yeah? Not those that come back from the future.

I swear I get dumber with each post of yours I accidently see

 

[terrybull]

It would have been interested to see what the AFL competition would have looked like, if most VFL teams (besides Essendon) cease to exist today due to their bankruptcy issues in the past

Essendon and Sydney would have joined the SANFL. Followed later by WA and QLD teams. SANFL would rename themselves to AFL. And South Australian fans (specially Norwood, Sturt and Port Adelaide) would be defending their club Premierships on BigFooty that it’s the same competition that started in 1877 and it’s only a name change.

 

[footyfan1978]

In last chapter "The workshop of historians assembled by the AFL in 2012 proposed that, in future, premiership listings should be recognised in three distinct eras: The Foundation Era- from 1870 to 1896, The VFL era- from 1897 to 1986 and the National Competition (AFL) Era - from 1987.
Appendix C outlines the premierships won by AFL clubs, from 1870 to 2022, listed in three eras."

The only real problem with this in my eyes is the present era we are in should be the Expansion Era and starts from 1982 when South Melbourne relocated interstate to Sydney. So I see the National Expansion Era as from 1982 to present and it still in process with Tasmania to be added. Before 1981 all clubs are Victorian based. From 1982 we have had clubs based outside of Victoria in the league.

The other issue I have is he does not address the VFA listings in how they should be recorded for history of the other body from the 1897 split.
That should also be the Foundation Era , Reset Era, Challenge VFL era (The Ron Todd and Soapy Vallence defections from league era) , Sunday niche era and Dead Man Walking Era. The last from 1982 to 1994 era.

 

[bomberclifford]

The only flags that count are the last one and the next one.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

and again, the issue of the AFL as a competition, contradicting its role as Custodian of the Game.
Not your fault, not mine, just a competition self-serving it’s own agenda (and by their silence, you know they tacitly support this “crusade“) as it further promotes its comp at the expense of the game’s history.

Seems like they're pretty inclusive on their website as regards the history of the game (in SA and WA at least).

Chronology - AFL.com.au

Follow the sequence of events that have occurred throughout the history of Australian Football

www.afl.com.au

 

[JimmyBC]

Clubs can count whatever they like the truth is in the engraving however.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Decided to do a quick search and the Footy Records are available online from 1912 onwards.

*Pretty awesome that a player decided to play for Geelong because the Hotel bar was closer there than going to Melbourne

But there you have it, it lists out the 'League' premierships from 1870...

Also in the paras on the left talking about the probability of the league and association joining. Interesting times...

View attachment 1606230

There were a number of times they tried to do it. They came very close - I believe it was in the 1940s - when all clubs had agreed in principal to merging back together, with the VFL as Division 1 and the VFA as Division 2.

It came unstuck on the details on promotion and relegation. The VFA wanted their premiers to go up, replaced by the VFL wooden spooners. The VFL clubs insisted there be a play-off between the two clubs, which the D2 club would have to win.

They couldn't agree and it all came undone.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

In last chapter "The workshop of historians assembled by the AFL in 2012 proposed that, in future, premiership listings should be recognised in three distinct eras: The Foundation Era- from 1870 to 1896, The VFL era- from 1897 to 1986 and the National Competition (AFL) Era - from 1987.
Appendix C outlines the premierships won by AFL clubs, from 1870 to 2022, listed in three eras."

The only real problem with this in my eyes is the present era we are in should be the Expansion Era and starts from 1982 when South Melbourne relocated interstate to Sydney. So I see the National Expansion Era as from 1982 to present and it still in process with Tasmania to be added. Before 1981 all clubs are Victorian based. From 1982 we have had clubs based outside of Victoria in the league.

I think 1870-1896 could be divided into pre-1877 and 1877-96 as the VFA was formed only in 1877?

Also, while the name change to AFL happened in 1990, I think 1982 when South’s were relocated to Sydney is a more meaningful milestone? This was indeed when the expansion outside Victoria occurred, with Brisbane and West Coast entering before 1990 when the VFL officially changed its name to the AFL

 

[footyfan1978]

I think 1870-1896 could be divided into pre-1877 and 1877-96 as the VFA was formed only in 1877?

Whilst you could, the people of that time did not do that so I think it better for accuracy of how period was seen by people that lived in that era to leave it in similar manner they recorded it. Before 1870 it would appear there was not enough uniformity in playing to the same set of rules for them to bother keep a record of a certain team as premier.

 

[footyfan1978]

Also, while the name change to AFL happened in 1990, I think 1982 when South’s were relocated to Sydney is a more meaningful milestone? This was indeed when the expansion outside Victoria occurred, with Brisbane and West Coast entering before 1990 when the VFL officially changed its name to the AFL

Yes, it was massive in 1982 so it really was the start of national expansion era, 1987 was just another incremental step of more expansion that continued to the present with Tassie the next step.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

Whilst you could, the people of that time did not do that so I think it better for accuracy of how period was seen by people that lived in that era to leave it in similar manner they recorded it. Before 1870 it would appear there was not enough uniformity in playing to the same set of rules for them to bother keep a record of a certain team as premier.

Before 1877 when the VFA was formed, what was the name of the Australian football rules competition during 1870-1876?

 

[footyfan1978]

Before 1877 when the VFA was formed, what was the name of the Australian football rules competition during 1870-1876?

It was probably referred to as Victorian Rules, not Australian Rules at that point because Australia was not even formed itself.
I think Champion of Colony would be the most likely "name" for the seasons.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Before 1877 when the VFA was formed, what was the name of the Australian football rules competition during 1870-1876?

No name.

It was football, there were a number of football clubs in the colony and they organised games against each other. That’s all there was to it.

 

[footyfan1978]

They did have names for Cups like Challenge Cups and South Yarra Cup a bit earlier but rules for each match seemed hard to agree on much before 1870.

 

[MelbourneGWS]

It was probably referred to as Victorian Rules, not Australian Rules at that point because Australia was not even formed itself.
I think Champion of Colony would be the most likely "name" for the seasons.

Yes, good point about the name!

 

[terrybull]

Before 1877 when the VFA was formed, what was the name of the Australian football rules competition during 1870-1876?

• the Caledonian Society Challenge Cup (1861–1864),
• the Athletic Sports Committee Challenge Cup (1865–1866), and
• the South Yarra Presentation Challenge Cup (1870–1871).”

 

[MelbourneGWS]

• the Caledonian Society Challenge Cup (1861–1864),
• the Athletic Sports Committee Challenge Cup (1865–1866), and
• the South Yarra Presentation Challenge Cup (1870–1871).”

So between 1872 to when the VFA was formed in 1877, there was no formal competition? And the various Challenge Cups seems to imply there was not a home and away league fixtures?

 

[terrybull]

So between 1872 to when the VFA was formed in 1877, there was no formal competition? And the various Challenge Cups seems to imply there was not a home and away league fixtures?

That’s right. No fixture, no competition. Clubs decided when to meet and play with what rules. I think the VFA set which rules to play at least. But not sure they had a fixture in their early years.

To win the challenge cups, a challenger had to beat the champion three times in a row.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Geelong went into recess during WW1 and WW2 for a few seasons so you have to deduct those seasons. I think they were the only team to do so during WW2 but during WW1 6 teams ultimately went into recess (leading to the infamous Wooden Spoon/Flag double by Fitzroy in 1916) with University never returning.

Good point. I almost think moving forward a ‘ratio’ rating is not a bad idea. In addition to totals. Would make for more interesting analysis.

In fact…. I’d also like a ratio of teams to be included too. As obviously winning a flag with 18 teams is a lot harder than when there were 10. So logically a flag in 2023 with 18 is worth ‘double’ than a win with 9 teams in the 1910’s etc….

It’s all getting too complex but it’d be interesting …


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Good point. I almost think moving forward a ‘ratio’ rating is not a bad idea. In addition to totals. Would make for more interesting analysis.

In fact…. I’d also like a ratio of teams to be included too. As obviously winning a flag with 18 teams is a lot harder than when there were 10. So logically a flag in 2023 with 18 is worth ‘double’ than a win with 9 teams in the 1910’s etc….

It’s all getting too complex but it’d be interesting …


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The smallest league was four teams in 1916, so we can make that worth "1 point".

So a flag won with 8 clubs in the league is worth 2 points, 12 clubs is worth 3 points, etc, up to flags won in the 18-club comp being worth 4.5 points.

46.25 Hawthorn (13)
45.75 Carlton (16)
45.00 Essendon (16)
41.75 Collingwood (15)
41.75 Richmond (13)
39.50 Melbourne (13)
34.75 Geelong (10)
16.75 Fitzroy (8)
16.00 West Coast (4)
16.00 Sydney / South Melbourne (5)
14.00 North Melbourne (4)
12.00 Brisbane Lions (3)
8.00 Adelaide (2)
7.50 Footscray / Western Bulldogs (2)
4.00 Port Adelaide (1)
3.00 St Kilda (1)
0.00 University (0)
0.00 Fremantle (0)
0.00 Gold Coast (0)
0.00 Greater Western Sydney (0)

 

[jarrod_island_doggies]

You could make a similar argument about 1993 and 2013 or about 2023 and 2013. The competition is what it is and if there is no better team at the time, then you get the chocolates - it is quite binary (and utterly pointless)

I think this point gets lost a lot too; the 1930 bricklayers were playing against other bricklayers; the 1981 'semi-professionals' who worked as stockbrokers on the side likewise. You want to get down to minutiae then how does a team with x-amount of line coaches, sports scientists, physios, nutritionists, personalised training loads, latest tech boots/gps/mouthguards from 2023 possibly compare to the one who had half that in 2010 - the answer is they don't and they don't have to because they're playing against the same standard in 2023.

 

[jarrod_island_doggies]

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.

Not sure population works that well for the point just quietly.

In countries where football (association/soccer) is the most popular, would you suggest that Indonesia (pop ~280 million) compares favourably with the PL/La Liga/Bundesliga? (combined pop of UK/Spain/Germany <200 million)