Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[IgnorantArmies]

Don't they elevate legends into the Hall of Fame or something?

People know there were plenty of quality WA and SA (Tassie and NT too) footballers, but trying to incorporate WAFL or SANFL history into the AFL is as ungainly as trying to fit the old VFA history in.. these were competitor leagues. The WAFL, SANFL and VFA all have their own histories.

The problem being that the AFL runs the Australian Football Hall of Fame, not the Victoria-and-a-few-token-selections-from-other-states Hall of Fame. If the AFL's going to claim to represent the entire history of Australian football, they need to act like it.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

One of the things I really hate about the AFL (both the league and the governing body; probably most major football media in general, too) is it basically constricts the entire history of Australian football into that "golden era" of 1970s and 1980s VFL football, ignoring basically every other era from every other state. Some of the most influential pre-WW1 figures are ignored entirely for moderately-good late-20-century players who played 250 games and had no other impact whatsoever.

(I could probably write pages on the AFL's overall bias, but I've chosen to shorten my rant into this, so blah)

That's patently untrue- the 70s and 80s seem to stand out because:

a) they were in more recent living memory, and
b) there was television coverage

.. but no AFL team has a history divided into pre and post-70s/80s (although Hawthorn and North would probably be tempted). There was no 'revolution' within the competition, just an evolution.

 

[PatientMental]

In 100 years no one will give a **** about the VFL anyway.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Read my post for the context. It was a response to his assertion that WAFL and SANFL history is of no concern to the AFL and should only be talked about by the WAFL and SANFL.

What you're proposing is akin to the NBA preserving and promoting the histories of the ABA and CBA. At least a handful of players from the WAFL and SANFL are recognised in the AFL Hall of Fame...nobody who played or coached exclusively in the VFA after 1897 has been admitted.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

The problem being that the AFL runs the Australian Football Hall of Fame, not the Victoria-and-a-few-token-selections-from-other-states Hall of Fame. If the AFL's going to claim to represent the entire history of Australian football, they need to act like it.

I doubt many people have a problem with SANFL, WAFL, TEAFL or any other competition being represented in the history of the game of Aussie Rules.. just note that there is a distinction between the history of the VFL/AFL vs the history of Australian Rules football.

The history of a competition is different from the history of a sport.

I honestly have no idea how the AFL or the Hall of Fame run their business b/c I'm honestly not that interested.. to determine whether Player A or Player B is 'worthy' of a spot in the Hall of Fame is purely subjective.

The AFL could have a wing of the Hall of Fame dedicated to the history of 'the sport', or separate wings dedicated to the SANFL or WAFL.. I don't know how practical it is, or how much interest would be shown though. With players from another state it's relatively easy, with clubs or from another state/competition it's more problematic.

It's probably naive to assume that people will be too interested in learning the nuances of four or five different state leagues that ran concurrently.. it's too complicated. The contribution of WA, SA etc footballers should be celebrated in the history of the sport, the history/contribution of WAFL, SANFL sides is something probably best left to those leagues (ie independent Hall of Fames in those states).

 

[IgnorantArmies]

That's patently untrue- the 70s and 80s seem to stand out because:

a) they were in more recent living memory, and
b) there was television coverage

.. but no AFL team has a history divided into pre and post-70s/80s (although Hawthorn and North would probably be tempted). There was no 'revolution' within the competition, just an evolution.

Of the 187 players in the Hall of Fame, 86 (46.0%) played in the VFL during the 1960s through to the 1980s.
Of the 22 "Legends", 13 (59.1%) did the same.
Of the 21 players in the AFL Team of the Century, 13 (61.9%) played during that era.

There is clearly a disproportionate acknowledgement of achievements during that era and onwards in comparison to achievements beforehand.

There's things on the AFL's Hall of Fame website that just completely neglect the game outside of Victoria, like completing ignoring Peter Hudson's Tasmanian career, or describing Barrie Robran (career entirely pre-1980) as "the best player never to play at AFL level".

 

[IgnorantArmies]

Okay, I think a differentiation needs to be made between AFL the league, which is a continuation of the Victorian Football League, and AFL the governing body, which is a (supposedly) independent commission replacing the former Australian National Football Council. Very different roles bound to overlap.

 

[WCE_phil]

While i firmly agree with some of the sentiments i dont think all of the vfl's past premierships should be relegated or not talked about for that matter. In saying that i think there should be a distinction between the modern or AFL era and the state era. I personally think there are possible dates for that. 1 is the introduction of the draft and 2 is 1991 when the crows joined thus making the afl the premier league to all 3 major football states.

 

[IgnorantArmies]

It's probably naive to assume that people will be too interested in learning the nuances of four or five different state leagues that ran concurrently.. it's too complicated. The contribution of WA, SA etc footballers should be celebrated in the history of the sport, the history/contribution of WAFL, SANFL sides is something probably best left to those leagues (ie independent Hall of Fames in those states).

Agreed (and they both already do exist). But why the pretentious Australian Football Hall of Fame then?

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Of the 187 players in the Hall of Fame, 86 (46.0%) played in the VFL during the 1960s through to the 1980s.
Of the 22 "Legends", 13 (59.1%) did the same.
Of the 21 players in the AFL Team of the Century, 13 (61.9%) played during that era.

There is clearly a disproportionate acknowledgement of achievements during that era and onwards in comparison to achievements beforehand.

There's things on the AFL's Hall of Fame website that just completely neglect the game outside of Victoria, like completing ignoring Peter Hudson's Tasmanian career, or describing Barrie Robran (career entirely pre-1980) as "the best player never to play at AFL level".

Lol, that's just b/c the Hall of Fame is just a flimsy concept in itself, it's policy-on-the-run.

Again, the 60s-80s is more heavily represented because it is more easily remembered and documented. There was a controversy when the AFL announced its 'Team of the Century' because no Collingwood players were in it.. Collingwood's most dominant era was the pre-War 1897-1945 era. Jack Regan may have been a better fullback than Steven Silvagni, but who the hell can honestly tell?

It's much easier to qualify and quantify such subjective decisions when the data/period is more recent and more thoroughly documented. Even then, it's just subjective and theoretical.. it is what it is.

I have no idea how they document Peter Hudson's career.. I have no idea how they document Ron Todd's either. I'm willing to bet that Bob Pratt is remembered as a South Melbourne legend, rather than a South Melbourne and Coburg legend though.

 

[IgnorantArmies]

While i firmly agree with some of the sentiments i dont think all of the vfl's past premierships should be relegated or not talked about for that matter. In saying that i think there should be a distinction between the modern or AFL era and the state era. I personally think there are possible dates for that. 1 is the introduction of the draft and 2 is 1991 when the crows joined thus making the afl the premier league to all 3 major football states.

I would really say any year from 1996 to 2003, when the league moved from really just being a showcase for a sport to an actual business. The sheer amount of changes in <playing style, broadcasting, rules, media, atmosphere> in the 21st century compared to the 20th century really defines an entirely new era.

 

[IgnorantArmies]

Lol, that's just b/c the Hall of Fame is just a flimsy concept in itself, it's policy-on-the-run.

Again, the 60s-80s is more heavily represented because it is more easily remembered and documented. There was a controversy when the AFL announced its 'Team of the Century' because no Collingwood players were in it.. Collingwood's most dominant era was the pre-War 1897-1945 era. Jack Regan may have been a better fullback than Steven Silvagni, but who the hell can honestly tell?

It's much easier to qualify and quantify such subjective decisions when the data/period is more recent and more thoroughly documented. Even then, it's just subjective and theoretical.. it is what it is.

I have no idea how they document Peter Hudson's career.. I have no idea how they document Ron Todd's either. I'm willing to bet that Bob Pratt is remembered as a South Melbourne legend, rather than a South Melbourne and Coburg legend though.

Yeah, I'm really just ranting. I probably shouldn't care .

 

[Son of Skeletor]

I would really say any year from 1996 to 2003, when the league moved from really just being a showcase for a sport to an actual business. The sheer amount of changes in <playing style, broadcasting, rules, media, atmosphere> in the 21st century compared to the 20th century really defines an entirely new era.

1987 will be considered the momentous year when History looks back and defines different eras.. for the 62 previous years, the same 12 teams had competed in the league, year after year. 1987-2012 has seen seven different clubs join in six separate expansions, and one 'extinction', as well as essentially serving as the Draft era, the non-Saturday afternoon game-time era.. the national, professional era.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Yeah, I'm really just ranting. I probably shouldn't care .

You're right, there is some overlap in terms of AFL-committee 'jurisdiction'.. it'd be nice to have everything neatly compacted into an Aussie Rules Hall of Fame, but then again there's a niceness to having separate, distinct histories that can be celebrated without dilution.

I look at it as a double-edged sword.. most Eagles and Crows fans (I would assume) still have a local team that they would support, right? Having two teams to follow without conflict-of-interest would have its advantages, especially when one is not going so well. I think most Eagle and Crow fans (if not WA and SA fans in general) still get to retain a bit of that old State-of-Origin feeling, whereas we who follow Melbourne clubs don't really get to experience that state rivalry anymore.

 

[benbanjo]

Note to self.... never argue with Ron the Bear.... has too many answers....

 

[BF Tiger]

So if Adelaide for some strange reason changed their name to Torrens Crows when they move to the Adealide Oval you'd be happy for us to ignore any records pertaining to the Adelaide Crows?

 

[smasha]

Thread designed to troll Richmond and Melbourne lol.
A Melbourne player invented the game.That player went to Richmond then the oval ball was invented.
The cheer squad is a Richmond invention.

 

[Blackas87]

While i firmly agree with some of the sentiments i dont think all of the vfl's past premierships should be relegated or not talked about for that matter. In saying that i think there should be a distinction between the modern or AFL era and the state era. I personally think there are possible dates for that. 1 is the introduction of the draft and 2 is 1991 when the crows joined thus making the afl the premier league to all 3 major football states.

Maybe we should wait for Tasmania to have a team?

 

[Wetdog]

The AFL recognizes VFL history and records because it is the same continuous league from 1897. Show me where the AFL is on record saying that SANFL and WAFL history and records are second rate and not important. It is up to those leagues to preserve their history, not the AFL.

The OP needs to deal with the fact that the game evolved by the VFL becoming the national league. That means its history and records are adopted. That doesn't (in my eyes) make a 1948 VFL flag more valuable than a 1948 SANFL flag.

 

[sherb]

Interesting topic.

I'm surprised it hasn't been raised before on BigFooty.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

WAFL and SANFL history and players are just as important as VFL history.

I agree, but obviously the overwhelming majority of fans of the West Coast Eagles, Fremantle and Adelaide, don't agree.

Why aren't most of them still preferring their original clubs? Because competing against Victorian clubs was more important to them than their original clubs. They were manipulated by razzamatazz and small town parochialism.

 

[Clay Davis]

Look, I know everyone amung

Stop.

 

[sherb]

In 100 years no one will give a **** about the VFL anyway.

In 100 years no one will probably give a **** about the current AFL either.

The competition will probably have a number of international sides, it will be called the International AFL (IAFL) and the supporters of the international sides will be complaining about the current day AFL being included in IAFL records.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Why would the AFL want to acknowledge the history of a second tier competition?

Because they acknowledge this as a first tier achievement

"the 1916 Fitzroy team only won 2 home and away matches and finished last in a competition reduced by the effects of World War I to four teams. All four teams qualified for the finals, and Fitzroy won their next three games to win one of the strangest VFL premierships"

Oft quoted but still relevant.

 

[rayven]

Who was the most dominant team in the mid 80's till the early mid 90's?

Whose the most succesfull coach at the highest level?