Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[MC Extra Dollop]

Please explain to me why we had a national competition in 1990 but we didn't in 1989

Different patch on the guernseys.

Look, if this ridiculous idea came into play, Geelong would instantly be transformed from a mediocre VFL/AFL club (in terms of success), to arguably the most successful club in AFL history (equal most premierships + most grand finals). North Melbourne and Sydney supporters are in the same boat. But the big issue with starting the clock in 1990 (as in the post I've quoted) is that literally nothing changed with the league from 1987-1990, besides the logo. Ultimately, I just wish the VFA had never changed its name and their wouldn't be this ambiguity over exactly what the 'VFL' is. The AFL doesn't give the current VFL any more attention than the WAFL or SANFL.

The professionalism and 'not undisputed national champions' arguments are just not important, in my opinion. Put that argument up against other sporting bodies (e.g. US pro leagues v negro teams, 'professional' athletes being banned from Olympic competition) and you'd be laughed at. Are Miami and Chicago in the NBA crying because the Celtics and Lakers won so many championships before they'd even started playing in the league? Of course not.

Recognise your club's history however you want. But while your club is in the AFL, don't expect them to recognise anything other than VFL premierships from 1897-1989 and AFL premierships from 1990-...well good luck with that.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Ken Farmer - 1419 goals for one. (replacing Lockett's 1360)
Ken Farmer - 23 goals in one game for two. (replacing Fanning's 18)
Ken Farmer - 6.33 goals per game for three. (replacing Coleman's 5.48)

The fact that you didn't even get this correct suggests that perhaps you don't even care about the issue you are 'ranting' about.

 

[BFVirgin]

Except for Port, Sydney and half of Brisbane (I assume not Freo) but yes, summed up perfectly in 11 words.

EFA

 

[BFVirgin]

Of course all Port Adelaide premierships before the entry of Central Districts in 1964 should not be counted. Until then the SANFL was just a metropolitan Adelaide competetion. With the entry of Centrals the league was completely changed

Was always the SANFL, no comp change; not a good comparison.

 

[Dirty Bird]

The fact that you didn't even get this correct suggests that perhaps you don't even care about the issue you are 'ranting' about.

Sorry, 5.479591837.

Sorry that I used common sense and rounded to 2 decimal points. I'm only 0.000408163 off

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Sorry, 5.479591837.

Sorry that I used common sense and ronuded to 2 decimal points. I'm only 0.000408163 off

Try again...Coleman doesn't hold the record. Which suggests that it's not a record that you give a stuff about.

 

[Bardo State]

If, by 2030, New Zealand has 2-3 teams and maybe a few other teams, and the league changes it's name to the ANZFL, do all premierships won in the AFL not count?

 

[Dirty Bird]

Try again...Coleman doesn't hold the record. Which suggests that it's not a record that you give a stuff about.

Exactly my point.
It's a 2nd tier league. One equal to that of the SANFL and WAFL. I care about mine (SANFL) you care about yours (VFL)

You do realise the idea of the thread was to determine when the backwater state league called the VFL become he modern incarnation we see today?

When I look at stats I actually ignore the years where the statistics were built up in the state league years.

I'd rather look at Lockett's 169 games in the AFL where he kicked 5.3 goals a game.
It's a much tougher accomplishment kicking goals against the best defenders in the country rather then the best defenders in 1 measly state.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Exactly my point.
It's a 2nd tier league. One equal to that of the SANFL and WAFL. I care about mine (SANFL) you care about yours (VFL)

You do realise the idea of the thread was to determine when the backwater state league called the VFL become he modern incarnation we see today?

When I look at stats I actually ignore the years where the statistics were built up in the state league years.

I'd rather look at Lockett's 169 games in the AFL where he kicked 5.3 goals a game.
It's a much tougher accomplishment kicking goals against the best defenders in the country rather then the best defenders in 1 measly state.

Okey mete...

 

[Dirty Bird]

If, by 2030, New Zealand has 2-3 teams and maybe a few other teams, and the league changes it's name to the ANZFL, do all premierships won in the AFL not count?

I find it amusing, you obviously didn't read the op.
The point was about finding what year the modern era should be.
The modern era was the years of the salary cap, draft and becoming the undisputed best league in the country.

The whole arguement of 'you joined our league' 'vfl is the afl' etc. Was never being disputed. It's just the ignoramus' in the thread that have brought that up.

I also pointed out that "Victorian trolls" would have this sort of arguement of 'new team = stats start again'. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

If, by 2030, New Zealand has 2-3 teams and maybe a few other teams, and the league changes it's name to the ANZFL, do all premierships won in the AFL not count?

Of course they will, they'll be known as 'second-tier premierships'..

... except for all those flags won before the Adelaide Crows joined the competition- those irrelevant accomplishments will be known as 'third-tier premierships'

 

[Bardo State]

I find it amusing, you obviously didn't read the op.
The point was about finding what year the modern era should be.
The modern era was the years of the salary cap, draft and becoming the undisputed best league in the country.

The whole arguement of 'you joined our league' 'vfl is the afl' etc. Was never being disputed. It's just the ignoramus' in the thread that have brought that up.

I also pointed out that "Victorian trolls" would have this sort of arguement of 'new team = stats start again'. Thanks for proving me right.

But what would change, even if you could distinguish a year for the 'modern era'?

I'm not a troll, I am genuinely confused with what you are arguing about if it isn't the relegation of premierships

 

[Son of Skeletor]

I find it amusing, you obviously didn't read the op.
The point was about finding what year the modern era should be.
The modern era was the years of the salary cap, draft and becoming the undisputed best league in the country.

The whole arguement of 'you joined our league' 'vfl is the afl' etc. Was never being disputed. It's just the ignoramus' in the thread that have brought that up.

I also pointed out that "Victorian trolls" would have this sort of arguement of 'new team = stats start again'. Thanks for proving me right.

We find it amusing that you label anyone who disagrees with your myopic view an "ignoramus" or "a Victorian troll".

"The point was about finding what year the modern era should be"..

That sentence does not make any sense. It is also based on the faulty presupposition that the modern era needed to be 'found' or 'defined' in the first place.

Everyone knows things have changed. Most people can appreciate history and place records in context, without the need for condescending revisionism. Belittling the history of the very competition your club joined is not going to win you very many friends.

English football counts the records and titles from the 19th century-on-wards, without distinction for 'Premier League' records. The NBA records its history from the 1940s on-wards, with ABA records discounted from its official records. I'd say you've been proven wrong.

 

[Black Diamond]

I'd rather look at Lockett's 169 games in the AFL where he kicked 5.3 goals a game.
It's a much tougher accomplishment kicking goals against the best defenders in the country rather then the best defenders in 1 measly state.

Lockett kicking bags in 1989 playing on Langford, Sylvagni etc. = played on measly state defenders.

Lockett kicking bags in 1990 playing on Langford, Sylvagni etc. = best defenders in the country.

Have I got this right?

 

[Bardo State]

That sentence does not make any sense. It is also based on the faulty presupposition that the modern era needed to be 'found' or 'defined' in the first place.

Everyone knows things have changed. Most people can appreciate history and place records in context, without the need for condescending revisionism. Belittling the history of the very competition your club joined is not going to win you very many friends.

This sums it up for me. Everyone knows that the league changed significantly throughout the 80s and 90s, so why the need to find a specific date? If you call it 1980 or 1990 or 1925 or 2012, it won't change a thing. It just won't matter as nothing in the record books will change, no asterisks will be added. You can look at the league's history in context, which is how it should be viewed but there is no reason to try to define a specific date or criteria.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Lockett kicking bags in 1989 playing on Langford, Sylvagni etc. = played on measly state defenders.

Lockett kicking bags in 1990 playing on Langford, Sylvagni etc. = best defenders in the country.

Have I got this right?

Nope, Dirty Bird considers the 1990 competition to have been a 'second tier', 'backwater state league'.

Funnily enough, he seems to consider 1991 to have been a watershed year for the league, 'worthy' of recognition.. I wonder why?

 

[Black Diamond]

Nope, Dirty Bird considers the 1990 competition to have been a 'second tier', 'backwater state league'.

Funnily enough, he seems to consider 1991 to have been a watershed year for the league, 'worthy' of recognition.. I wonder why?

I think the watershed year should be 1997. Port Adelaide's entrance legitimised South Australia as a football state - capable of supporting multiple teams. Therefore the Crows' performances to that stage should for historical purposes be viewed as those of an illegitimate State of Origin team.

 

[Wetdog]

That sentence does not make any sense. It is also based on the faulty presupposition that the modern era needed to be 'found' or 'defined' in the first place.

Everyone knows things have changed. Most people can appreciate history and place records in context, without the need for condescending revisionism. Belittling the history of the very competition your club joined is not going to win you very many friends.

This. Quoted for truth.

 

[Simple Jack]

EFA

Yep, forgot the Swans.

 

[sherb]

When I look at stats I actually ignore the years where the statistics were built up in the state league years.

I'd rather look at Lockett's 169 games in the AFL where he kicked 5.3 goals a game.
It's a much tougher accomplishment kicking goals against the best defenders in the country rather then the best defenders in 1 measly state.

You can do what you like.

And while you are doing that, the AFL meanwhile continues to get this particular issue (ie the recognition of competition records to 1897) completely correct.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Lockett kicking bags in 1989 playing on Langford, Sylvagni etc. = played on measly state defenders.

Lockett kicking bags in 1990 playing on Langford, Sylvagni etc. = best defenders in the country.

Have I got this right?

Lockett was reportedly apprehensive about the challenge posed by game-changers Danny Hughes and Peter McIntyre in 1991. Professional that he was, Plugger managed to break square with hauls of 12 and 10 even as the Camry Crows stars dragged the game into the modern era...

There's an argument to be made that new clubs actually dilute/bloat the competition, since it was the in-demand players who were migrating to the V(A)FL beforehand.

 

[sherb]

If you had bothered reading some of the replies in this thread Dirty Bird you might have got some answers to your questions. But I suspect you don't want answers, you just want to have an ongoing and almighty whinge about those big bad Victorians and their league.

But I will answer a couple of your opening questions again. Yet again.

So why should the AFL raise VFL stats to the equal of a national competition later on?

It's not about equivalence. You don't seem to get this. Recognition of a competition's history is not claiming equivalence of achievements between different eras. It is simply documenting achievements over the years. The AFL recognizes its history back to 1897 because it has been the one, continuous, ongoing competition since then. The fact that it has changed in nature doesn't affect the logical process of the documentation of competition records if that competition has been ongoing.

Why not recognise the SANFL and WAFL stats? It just reeks of arrogance and/or ignorance.

Because the AFL, the competition, has no obligation to record any other league's stats. And the WAFL and SANFL are different competitions. It's why the SANFL doesn't recognize the SAAFL in its records for instance. Or why the WAFL doesn't recognize any other league's records in its own. Seriously, how difficult is that to understand?

Now, the AFL as custodian of the code, is a completely different matter when it comes to the lack of recognition of state league achievements (not just the two you mentioned might I add), and that has been acknowledged in some of the replies. And I provided quite a detailed possible answer to that. Which I can't be stuffed repeating. Go back and read it.

And I'd point out that the wearing of the two hats by the AFL has also been acknowledged in this thread as a potential issue.

 

[sherb]

Nope, Dirty Bird considers the 1990 competition to have been a 'second tier', 'backwater state league'.

Funnily enough, he seems to consider 1991 to have been a watershed year for the league, 'worthy' of recognition.. I wonder why?

Well, it's not like anything special happened in 1991 so I guess he just picked a random year.

 

[Dalphonso]

I'd have no problem with these records being recognised in an Australian Football body. Same with Port's premiership record. But it has no place being included in the records of this league.

Nor do any VFL records before 1990.
At the end of the day who gives a rats arse about Ports 34 SANFL premierships(yes I know Ports heritage and all that but move on) or Collingwoods 13 VFL premierships.
All we should be concerned about really is how are clubs are going to go in 2013.
Sydney are the current champs and teams will look forward to the challenge of climbing the ladder next year.

 

[Ron The Bear]

IMO the closest thing to a watershed period was 1986-87 when Carlton's grand final teams contained Kernahan, Bradley, Hunter, Motley, Dorotich, Naley, Blackwell, Dennis & Maclure from other states (plus Rhys-Jones and Evans from the Sydney Swans). The prevailing sentiment was that Carlton had "bought" the 1987 flag.

Oh, and a couple of new clubs popped up around then, too.