Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[Son of Skeletor]

So by the sounds of it, I should be banding with Hawthorn and North supporters to cry out that premierships before 1925 should not be counted.

Either that or our 9 VFA flags and champions of victoria trophy should be recognised.

You guys copped a raw deal

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Premierships are premierships no matter in what competition they are achieved. There's no intent to discredit or downplay winning a WAFL, SANFL, AFL or VFL premiership at any time since football started.

Bottom line is this. You can't say you won a premiership in the AFL pre 1990 because it wasn't the AFL then. If the AFL and VFL is interchangeable then we could equally say today that Sydney just won the 2012 VFL premiership. It's semantics, but I don't recognise the use of AFL for VFL period premierships.

I don't think anybody does. They're VFL/AFL premierships.

 

[Monkey King]

Not really, as even back then it was Australia's best cricketers against England's best cricketers. Just like today.

The AFL is Australia's best footballers. The VFL wasn't. It only had some of them.

No mate. It's Australia versus the World's best cricketers. Back then, it wasn't the best in the world, just some of them. Even in analogy you don't make any sense. LOL

 

[The Speaker]

They absolutely should be ignored by the competition. The AFL have never run the SANFL or WAFL and were basically competing against them in the past.

AFL the body and keepers of the game should not be ignoring it though. Again, people just can not separate the two AFL roles.

How can we if the League insists on continuing their dual role and acting as though they are one?

 

[Monkey King]

All that matters is whether it is the same league. That's it. That's all that matters.

And this is all it boils down to. The rest is just a personal appraisal of how you rate each flag. It's an internal thing. How important must some posters think they are to suggest the AFL adopt new records to align with their personal appraisals? Holy shit! In 50 years from now the whipper snappers of the day won't rate our "modern" premierships either. It happens to most generations. I'm amazed these blokes are actually serious. Mind numbing stuff.

 

[Rob]

No mate. It's Australia versus the World's best cricketers. Back then, it wasn't the best in the world, just some of them. Even in analogy you don't make any sense. LOL

Really? Where were the other cricketers playing then, if not in the world of international cricket?

 

[Monkey King]

... but I don't recognise the use of AFL for VFL period premierships.

The perfect case in point. That's fine. That's your personal take on things. But the official records don't represent your personal views and nor should they; and nor will they ever. If that bothers you, just don't follow the competition. Don't support any team in the chase for premiership No.117. It's the easiest solution to your personal dilemma.

 

[sherb]

How can we if the League insists on continuing their dual role and acting as though they are one?

They should be ignored by the AFL "the competition" and acknowledged/recognized by the AFL "the keeper of the code".

And, as you point out, this is the conundrum the AFL has created for itself by wearing two hats. And, in relation to this particular issue, it is handling it extremely poorly in my view.

I'd also mention that the WAFL and SANFL aren't the only State Leagues in Australia.

 

[Monkey King]

Really? Where were the other cricketers playing then, if not in the world of international cricket?

Err ... in all those countries that Australia didn't compete against

"The world of international cricket". Wow! You seriously believe that too don't you? I get you're trying desperately to make a link between this "National" and "International", but this shows how disingenuous your argument is.

But hey, the VFL had players from all over country dude! Just because logistics prevented clubs from basing themselves in other states doesn't mean the league wasn't a National competition.

See ... we can all come up with stupid arguments if we want to. It ain't that hard.

 

[Bardo State]

So by the sounds of it, I should be banding with Hawthorn and North supporters to cry out that premierships before 1925 should not be counted.

Either that or our 9 VFA flags and champions of victoria trophy should be recognised.

Come on North, dogs and Hawks supporters!

Let's rally and get the REAL (post 1925) premiership tally recognised!

Maybe we should make countless roundabout 1000+ post threads every offseason behind this noble cause

But then that would be stupid and pointless wouldn't it...

 

[Rob]

Err ... in all those countries that Australia didn't compete against

Like who? Name a few. I can name a shitload of the best footballers in Australia that didn't compete in the VFL.

"The world of international cricket". Wow! You seriously believe that too don't you? I get you're trying desperately to make a link between this "National" and "International", but this shows how disingenuous your argument is.

But hey, the VFL had players from all over country dude! Just because logistics prevented clubs from basing themselves in other states doesn't mean the league wasn't a National competition.

See ... we can all come up with stupid arguments if we want to. It ain't that hard.

WTF? VFL winners were champions of Victoria. AFL winners are champions of Australia.

The world of cricket may have been significantly smaller 80 years ago, but it was still the best in the world. The VFL wasn't.

 

[ManOfClay]

Come on North, dogs and Hawks supporters!

Let's rally and get the REAL (post 1925) premiership tally recognised!

Maybe we should make countless roundabout 1000+ post threads every offseason behind this noble cause

But then that would be stupid and pointless wouldn't it...

And as the first of those three to win a flag in the new competition, I claim we are superior.

Because you might have climbed everest a few times, but we'll always be the first.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

A few years back, when the VFA/VFL was in the throes of its ongoing awkward transition, Port Melbourne, as one of the few original clubs that had both the will and the means to continue to exist as a serious football club, briefly floated the idea of joining the SANFL, as they felt there was no appropriate league in Victoria for them to compete in.

Could well happen again with the VFA/VFL slowly suffering death by 1000 cuts.

Were it to happen, I look forward to the SANFL officially acknowledging Port Melbourne’s 16 premierships as part of its history... after all, it’s superior to what the existing SANFL clubs (other than Port Adelaide or Norwood) have achieved.

Or better yet, wiping the slate clean and officially recognising that all clubs have zero flags... all former SANFL flags would be officially recognised as premierships won in a previous, lesser competition that was weaker, as it only contained clubs from SA.

Yeah.... I bet either of those things would happen.

 

[Bardo State]

And as the first of those three to win a flag in the new competition, I claim we are superior.

Because you might have climbed everest a few times, but we'll always be the first.

On second thought, I think 1960 would be a more accurate reflection of the league's transition

 

[resurrector]

not sure if already been said on previous pages but i'm starting to notice more media attention directed towards 'AFL Era' best of teams, history etc etc...with this is mind i can see this type of outlook applied by the AFL themselves when looking back

 

[Monkey King]

Like who? Name a few. I can name a shitload of the best footballers in Australia that didn't compete in the VFL.

I'll just name one. Hayden Bunton. See. National Competition right there! He wasn't Victorian, hence two states were represented. By your definition of "International" that's all it takes right?

And who cares if they were all the best or not? Even today there are footballers who are better than some of those running around in the AFL playing in other leagues, so obviously it's still not a national comp then, particularly when Tassie, ACT and NT have no representation.

WTF? VFL winners were champions of Victoria. AFL winners are champions of Australia.

No they weren't mate. That's just some term you've invented. The VFL winners were Champions of the VFL. And now the AFL winners are champions of the AFL. And guess what ... it's the same ****ing league. Hahahahaha! There have been 116 champions of this league and it's all recorded in an official history. You don't have to watch the chase for 117 if this upsets you somehow. No one's gonna force you mate; you do it by choice.

The world of cricket may have been significantly smaller 80 years ago, but it was still the best in the world.

No it wasn't. It was the best of England versus the best of Australia.

The rest is just you talking through your arse.

 

[sherb]

Like who? Name a few. I can name a shitload of the best footballers in Australia that didn't compete in the VFL.



WTF? VFL winners were champions of Victoria. AFL winners are champions of Australia.

The world of cricket may have been significantly smaller 80 years ago, but it was still the best in the world. The VFL wasn't.

With respect, when I mentioned Test Cricket it was in relation to my comment that a competition's history isn't about measuring equivalence.

Your reply seems to imply that equivalence is only relative to the best players playing against each other.

I disagree. You also have things like travel, fitness/skills of players, standard of play, quality of grounds, length of games, equipment, the number of teams involved, administration, rules, nutrition, training regimes, etc which can vary greatly over the years.

So in relation to Test Cricket, the game in 1877 is nothing like what it is today. There is no equivalence on just about every parameter I have mentioned.

But the records go back to 1877. Why? Because a competition's history is about recording achievements, not evaluating them from one era against another.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

WTF? VFL winners were champions of Victoria. AFL winners are champions of Australia.

You may be interested to know that at certain, isolated times through the last century, some people considered VFA football as superior to the VFL.

VFL premiers weren’t the crowned champions of Victoria. They were champions of the VFL. Which is now the AFL.

 

[Rob]

I'll just name one. Hayden Bunton. See. National Competition right there! He wasn't Victorian, hence two states were represented. By your definition of "International" that's all it takes right?

And who cares if they were all the best or not? Even today there are footballers who are better than some of those running around in the AFL playing in other leagues, so obviously it's still not a national comp then, particularly when Tassie, ACT and NT have no representation.

Are you seriously disputing that the AFL champions aren't the champions of Australia? You think it's likely that there's another team running around somewhere in some other league that are capable of beating them?

Because that was the reality for the VFL champions. It was entirely possible that they were not the best team in Australia. And as others have pointed out, they might not even have been the best team in Victoria.

No they weren't mate. That's just some term you've invented. The VFL winners were Champions of the VFL. And now the AFL winners are champions of the AFL. And guess what ... it's the same ******* league. Hahahahaha! There have been 116 champions of this league and it's all recorded in an official history. You don't have to watch the chase for 117 if this upsets you somehow. No one's gonna force you mate; you do it by choice.

None of this shit upsets me. Just I find it funny how arrogant Victorians think the football world begins and ends in their state. VFL winners were not champions of Australia - that's the bottom line. Consequently a VFL premiership is not worth as much as an AFL one, and should not be compared side by side.

No it wasn't. It was the best of England versus the best of Australia.

The rest is just you talking through your arse.

Still waiting for an example of all these great cricket teams back in Bradman's day that he didn't play against.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Like who? Name a few. I can name a shitload of the best footballers in Australia that didn't compete in the VFL.

Bart King. Vince van der Bijl. Clive Rice. Mahadevan Sathasivam, "the greatest batsman ever on earth", according to Sobers. They remain obscure because they never competed at Test level, while the likes of K.S.Ranjitsinjhi and Tony Greig are famous names after playing Test cricket for adopted countries.

No doubt there were many local legends whom history has forgotten because their careers preceded their country's entry to Test cricket.

 

[BACCS]

There are two separate issues.

1. Should VFL records be part of the AFL records? Absolutely. It is a continuous competition since 1897 and by that measure alone all records since inception should stand. To me that is unarguable.
2. The issue of recognition of state league records. They can't be included in the VFL/AFL records as they were separate competitions. What the AFL should do, as "keeper of the code", is separately and independently record and recognize these competitions. Have a look at how cricket records its stats:
LONG FORM
Test Cricket
First-Class (which includes test cricket)
SHORT FORM - ODI
ODI
List "A" (which includes ODI)
SHORT FORM - T20
T20 International
T20 (which includes T20 international)
Why couldn't the AFL set up a similar system for recording of games/records as far down as State Leagues? (With State League level being the equivalent of cricket's first-class)?

Now, yes, there are going to be inequities. But that is unavoidable. First-class cricket matches around the world vary widely in standard for instance.

And it would take a lot of work still in determining parameters. Eg, if AFL matches are regarded as the equivalent of "Tests", does that apply to the entire VFL/AFL competition or since, say 1990? (I could certainly see an argument for an arbitrary cutoff date in this broadened method of recognizing the game's records).

And where do International Matches, state matches, carnivals, night matches/pre-season competitions etc fit in? But that could all be worked out beforehand. Once you set the standards and parameters it is then a matter of research, accumulation of records and recording them.

The problem here is the AFL's wearing of two hats. They are trying to run the competition and the code at the same time. There is too much focus on the former for me. I'd like to see an ANFC style body come back in for some aspects of the game's administration (eg the recording and recognition of the history of the game beyond the AFL competition).

This post makes the most sense out of this thread. It really wouldn't be hard for the AFL to organise something like this. I'm guessing they eventually will, but there is no reason for them not to now.

I mean really, does any Victorian supporter really care about flags before the AFL era when comparing to the modern successful sides? When a Carlton supporter is arguing with an Adelaide supporter, they don't have 16 flags, they have one, Adelaide has two. Whereas, if a Carlton supporter is arguing with an Essendon supporter, I have no problem in them both claiming they have won 16 flags, cos those two sides actually competed in the same league when they were won.

Hawthorn were a dominant VFL side during the 80s, but as their AFL records clearly show, they aren't this dominant in the AFL. And yes, I used that example as another jab to Hawks supporters.

It is just the way the official records are displayed which annoys people, and you would hope this is rectified in the future in a similar way to sherb stated in the above post.

 

[Monkey King]

Are you seriously disputing that the AFL champions aren't the champions of Australia? You think it's likely that there's another team running around somewhere in some other league that are capable of beating them?

I'm disputing that there is any such thing as "Champions of Australia" outside of your head. Or that there was ever such a thing as "Champions of Victoria" - well actually, it was once referred to in a match between the VFA and VFL premiers, which was actually won by the VFA team. But still, that only shows that the VFL premiers were "Champions" of nothing other than the league in which they played; just like today.

What you've done is create an imaginary title that suits an argument you've devised in your head because you don't like recorded history and instead want to pretend it all went down in some other way. But sorry, next year is premiership #117 and you're just going to have to accept it.

None of this shit upsets me. Just I find it funny how arrogant Victorians think the football world begins and ends in their state.

You don't find it funny. It upsets you. And it's obvious too. It's got you concocting "Champions" awards, abandoning logic and ignoring the plain fact that this is about the prize of a premiership offered up by one competition, nothing to do with International this or National that. That shit isn't even relevant. It's doubtful humour would drive to you to such idiocies, usually only disturbed emotions drive people to completely abandon rational thinking.


And West Indies btw to answer your question. Test records go back long before they joined in.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I mean really, does any Victorian supporter really care about flags before the AFL era when comparing to the modern successful sides?

So your problem's the bragging rights conferred by the number of recognised premierships? I'd suggest Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon supporters care more about respective premiership tallies than supporters of the other clubs combined. It's a private peripheral debate between supporters of those clubs AFAIC. And the AFL does not officially recognise any VFL/AFL "premiership table".

And yeah, I care about flags won in the "pre-AFL era". I care about whether North Melbourne survives, because their history is Richmond's history, too. I care far less about the histories of Sturt and West Perth, which have only the most tenuous connection to the VFL/AFL. My perspective is every bit as valid as yours in not caring about the histories of the Victorian clubs prior to Adelaide competing against them.

 

[Dalphonso]

Even the AFL considers themselves the VFL with a new name and expanded horizons, that's all it is. Same league, same entity, bigger and better. I find it incredible that some would think we should just discount one hundred years of history because the afl added their team twenty years ago? Of course the VFL isn't the same as the AFL but the AFL's timeline begins with the VFL founded in 1897, you can split up era's all you like but it will still be the same continuous timeline and story.

Records of the AFL should only be kept since 1990 when the AFL officially began.
VFA records aren't taken into account from the early years nor should the VFL.

 

[Dandy_GO]

We have a national competition, but, in a lot of ways, it doesn't feel like one.
It would be nice if more were done to celebrate the achievements and contributions that other states have made, rather than ignoring, or downplaying them. Footy has been played in SA, Tassie and WA for well over a century. Port Adelaide, for example, is an older club than Collingwood. The SAFA, which would later become the SANFL, was established in 1877 - only 18 years later than the invention of the game, and, in fact, a few weeks EARLIER than the inception of the VFA (later VFL.)
We entered new (and old) clubs into a competition which we recognised was the VFL, rebranded as a national competition - the AFL. This organisation seeks, at all opportunities, to remind us that it is the NATIONAL league, yet, the AUSTRALIAN football league hall of fame, as an example, is HEAVILY overrepresented by VFL players. Only one non-VFL player, Barrie Robran, has achieved legend status, and even in his writeup he's listed as the "best player never to play AFL" despite the fact that he played entirely before the AFL existed. Does this make him better than Leigh Matthews, and every other VFL player? While many, including VFL players David Parkin and legend Alex Jesaulenko have said that he was, we all know that this isn't what that line is suggesting.
I don't like the OP's solution, but it would certainly be nice if more were done to celebrate what South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia have brought to the game pre-AFL era. Chuck in the other states and territories, too.
We already constantly hear about the VFL and celebrate Victoria's contribution. That's perfectly fine, but it's completely unbalanced, for what is supposed to be a national governing body of the sport.

I have long since abandoned hope of Victorians understanding this.