Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2010
- Posts
- 36,412
- Reaction score
- 23,953
- Location
- Adelaide
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- #BostonStrong #RiseUp
Look, I know everyone amung us would have seen this some time or another in the confines of BigFooty, but it's something that has and untill fixed by the AFL, will make me chagrined about the matter, so I'm just venting.
It's about the Victorians out there who actually think the VFL should be held in the same breath as the AFL.
Yes, I do see why some Victorians have this archaic point of view. But it's simply an insult to those outside of Victoria and a reason why some of the ignoramuses up North (New South Welshman and Queenslanders) don't bother even developing an itnerest in the AFL.
Is the league the same legal identity? Yes it is.
But things changed drastically through the 80s before the culmination of 1990/1991.
Before 1982 it was simply a state league. A state league that couldn't even definitely claim the mantle of the best. Sure, It had the most money, which in turn, created the position that we're in, but, were they the best?
There were points throughout the years that screamed no.
Before the start of the Vietnam War, Victorian teams had only managed to win 2, I repeat, 2 Championship of Australia titles. In one of the years before the Vietnam War began, Carlton had only lost 4 games all season. Their largest loss was 21 points. In the Championship of Australia match, they lost by 34 and it would have been more if Port Adelaide could kick a little straighter than 9.16 that day.
Even in later years there was no definitive best.
1968 - Sturt had 2 less scoring shots than Carlton.
1970 - Sturt equaled Carlton in scoring shots.
1972 - North Adelaide beat Carlton.
1973 - Subiaco could match Richmond right untill the end.
There was no definitive best league as they were fighting till the death in games showing equal talent.
So why should the AFL raise VFL stats to the equal of a national competition later on?
Why not recognise the SANFL and WAFL stats? It just reeks of arrogance and/or ignorance.
Alot of the major leagues in the world dont even recognise their own stats to their foundation and only start records in a mythical line in the sand date.
Look at the NFL - Their modern era began in 1967 and despite the fact that similiar feats occured prior and post this date, they don't say they're equal to each other, they point out one was in the modern era where anyone with a brain would know, that that date was the transformation of the league. As each season goes the media all compare the last remaining undefeated team to the 1972 Miami Dolphins. You never hear a whisper of the 1934 Chicago Bears. You dont hear that the 2007 New England Patriots replicated the 1942 Chicago Bears, they just failed to replicate the 1972 Miami Dolphins. You hear people talk about Pittsburgh Steelers' 6 Superbowl Championships, one never really hears about the Green Bay Packers 13 NFL titles, 9 were pre-1967, you only hear about their 1967, 1968, 1997 and 2011 titles.
The NFL has a date set where one recognises where the modern era begun as do other leagues.
Look at the MLB - Their year is 1903. They dont care about the Giants' titles in the 1880s, or the Orioles titles in the 1890s. They have their year for the modern era, and they stick by it.
Outside of Liverpool, you very rarely hear about league titles in English Football pre-1993. Sure, it is legally a different entity. But it is basically the same setup, same promotion system and the teams were the same (besides the 3 that went up and down via promotion/relegation).
The VFL/AFL had changes in it's timeline that need to be acknowledged as the change of the league and the AFL needs to recognise it. Look at 1972. Do realists believe that Carlton > North Adelaide and East Perth? No, only people with their heads up their arses do. They're equals. They're all from state leagues, they were all state champions. The AFL needs to, like some of its fans, get their heads out of the arses and rectify this.
But the question is which year does one pick.
From previous experiences, I know some Victorian trolls will say 2012 as it's when GWS entered the comp and it's different then all years prior. But without being a moron, what year should it be?
1982 - The league left Victoria with South Melbourne relocating.
1986 - The draft was installed leading to equality.
1987 - The league implanted a team in Western Australia moving it from effectively a state league with state players to a national league.
1990 - The league changed names.
1991 - The league implanted a team in South Australia taking the remaining top end players from the last standpoint against the VFL. Not only did this (along with 1987 with WA) bring the best 30 into the league for their local team, it lead to the fringe players moving elsewhere interstate as the league they played in went down a few notches at once. One example - Darren Jarman to Hawthorn.
1991 is probably the year it should have been, but alot of the ignoramus' wouldn't comprehend why it's 1991, so I feel 1990 should be the year that the AFL recognises as the 'modern era'.
If the league doesn't do it, all they do is inflate the egos of the addlepates out there.
The only other equal option is accept the fact that Port Adelaide has more national and state titles combined than anyone else.
/end rant.
inb4tl;dr
It's about the Victorians out there who actually think the VFL should be held in the same breath as the AFL.
Yes, I do see why some Victorians have this archaic point of view. But it's simply an insult to those outside of Victoria and a reason why some of the ignoramuses up North (New South Welshman and Queenslanders) don't bother even developing an itnerest in the AFL.
Is the league the same legal identity? Yes it is.
But things changed drastically through the 80s before the culmination of 1990/1991.
Before 1982 it was simply a state league. A state league that couldn't even definitely claim the mantle of the best. Sure, It had the most money, which in turn, created the position that we're in, but, were they the best?
There were points throughout the years that screamed no.
Before the start of the Vietnam War, Victorian teams had only managed to win 2, I repeat, 2 Championship of Australia titles. In one of the years before the Vietnam War began, Carlton had only lost 4 games all season. Their largest loss was 21 points. In the Championship of Australia match, they lost by 34 and it would have been more if Port Adelaide could kick a little straighter than 9.16 that day.
Even in later years there was no definitive best.
1968 - Sturt had 2 less scoring shots than Carlton.
1970 - Sturt equaled Carlton in scoring shots.
1972 - North Adelaide beat Carlton.
1973 - Subiaco could match Richmond right untill the end.
There was no definitive best league as they were fighting till the death in games showing equal talent.
So why should the AFL raise VFL stats to the equal of a national competition later on?
Why not recognise the SANFL and WAFL stats? It just reeks of arrogance and/or ignorance.
Alot of the major leagues in the world dont even recognise their own stats to their foundation and only start records in a mythical line in the sand date.
Look at the NFL - Their modern era began in 1967 and despite the fact that similiar feats occured prior and post this date, they don't say they're equal to each other, they point out one was in the modern era where anyone with a brain would know, that that date was the transformation of the league. As each season goes the media all compare the last remaining undefeated team to the 1972 Miami Dolphins. You never hear a whisper of the 1934 Chicago Bears. You dont hear that the 2007 New England Patriots replicated the 1942 Chicago Bears, they just failed to replicate the 1972 Miami Dolphins. You hear people talk about Pittsburgh Steelers' 6 Superbowl Championships, one never really hears about the Green Bay Packers 13 NFL titles, 9 were pre-1967, you only hear about their 1967, 1968, 1997 and 2011 titles.
The NFL has a date set where one recognises where the modern era begun as do other leagues.
Look at the MLB - Their year is 1903. They dont care about the Giants' titles in the 1880s, or the Orioles titles in the 1890s. They have their year for the modern era, and they stick by it.
Outside of Liverpool, you very rarely hear about league titles in English Football pre-1993. Sure, it is legally a different entity. But it is basically the same setup, same promotion system and the teams were the same (besides the 3 that went up and down via promotion/relegation).
The VFL/AFL had changes in it's timeline that need to be acknowledged as the change of the league and the AFL needs to recognise it. Look at 1972. Do realists believe that Carlton > North Adelaide and East Perth? No, only people with their heads up their arses do. They're equals. They're all from state leagues, they were all state champions. The AFL needs to, like some of its fans, get their heads out of the arses and rectify this.
But the question is which year does one pick.
From previous experiences, I know some Victorian trolls will say 2012 as it's when GWS entered the comp and it's different then all years prior. But without being a moron, what year should it be?
1982 - The league left Victoria with South Melbourne relocating.
1986 - The draft was installed leading to equality.
1987 - The league implanted a team in Western Australia moving it from effectively a state league with state players to a national league.
1990 - The league changed names.
1991 - The league implanted a team in South Australia taking the remaining top end players from the last standpoint against the VFL. Not only did this (along with 1987 with WA) bring the best 30 into the league for their local team, it lead to the fringe players moving elsewhere interstate as the league they played in went down a few notches at once. One example - Darren Jarman to Hawthorn.
1991 is probably the year it should have been, but alot of the ignoramus' wouldn't comprehend why it's 1991, so I feel 1990 should be the year that the AFL recognises as the 'modern era'.
If the league doesn't do it, all they do is inflate the egos of the addlepates out there.
The only other equal option is accept the fact that Port Adelaide has more national and state titles combined than anyone else.
/end rant.
inb4tl;dr
