Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[Black Diamond]

The AFL ruined AFLQ.

Clubs like Morningside, Southport have a history equal to Essendon and Collingwood pre 1990.

 

[sherb]

A continuous sporting competition acknowledges and recognizes its records from inception.

It's perfectly logical.

 

[Franc de Borges]

It's Grand Final day 2012. Surely that's all that matters right now...

 

[chazwazza]

It's a great topic, a valid one and one worth discussing.
As far as a year as a cut off line between AFL and VFL I'd have to say that when West Coast entered the VFL was when the first real steps towards a national comp were taken, however flawed those steps were. I'd like to see AFL and State league premierships separated, ie Collingwood have won X VFL and X AFL Premierships and Port Adelaide have won X SANFL and X AFL Premierships. Both should be aknowledged, celebrated and divided, anything else is fabrication and playing with the truth.
History wise, I think many non Victorian supporters get a bit tired of having all things VFL shoved down their throats as the one recognized history of the AFL, it's pretty insulting to be honest and it's about time the AFL hierarchy made an honest point of celebrating and aknowledging the other state and club football histories, and I don't just mean a token Hall of Fame induction.
All State leagues and clubs have had their part in working towards a national competition, not just Victorian ones. This is constantly ignored sometimes it seems, deliberately overlooked and there's no reason that the AFL shouldn't be working towards a public policy of recognition and inclusion. As an example, instead of just past VFL Grand Finals being replayed leading up to the AFL GF, show a replay of a past SANFL or WAFL GF. What's there to lose?
To me, it's about a collective history of our game and one that should be taught and shared, not a history that is censored and revised.

Unfortunately our national comp was formed at a time when many VFL clubs were technically bankrupt and the VFL was desperate to find a way to bankroll their survival, that they did this by undermining the other State leagues is unfortunate to say the least and is no way to start a national football competition. However this is what we've now got and it's with this unfortunate foundation that we need to evolve from and hopefully one day develop a competition that is truely inclusive.
There's no real reason that the kid who watched Sturt demolish Port in 1976 infront of 66,000 at Footy Park shouldn't apsire to see his club play on the national stage one day, he has just as much right as the kid who watched Footscray, St Kilda, Claremont or Subiaco. This possibility never eventuated due to the disappointing circumstances of the past but it need not be the case for the future and the sooner we can move towards a national competition that has a relegation process every 5 years (as an example) the better, in my mind. Every state league club should have the opportunity to EARN right to play on the national stage, not some god given right because of history, football politics or geography. It should've been this from the outset and something football should work towards.
This is not the case and I accept that but it doesn't mean that those histories shouldn't be included much, much more. The non Victorian football public have given up more than anyone for a national competition, and they continue to do so, to have only one history truely celebrated by the AFL is insulting.

 

[QS]

The WAFL or the SANFL could've sought to invite Victorian or SA teams to join and expand; they didn't, the VFL did and thus here we are.
I do agree though, that it's not fair to discount the pre AFL achievements, but they shouldn't be used when measuring success of a side in the modern era as playing two suburbs away every Saturday and winning 3 premierships in a row is a lot harder than say Brisbane doing it in 01/02/03 or Geelong in 07/09/11 given travel and demands on players.
Richmond are not more successful than Adelaide. They were in the VFL, but not in the AFL, there's a distinct demarcation.
The Victorians may enjoy their debates about number of premierships pre 1990, but nobody else really cares about that era in terms of determining success in 2012.

 

[Franc de Borges]

If they changed the name in '82, '87 or '91 I'd accept a new national era. The fact that they did it when nothing changed accept for a badge on the jumper ('89/'90) makes this argument nonsensical.

 

[ManOfClay]

The VFL became the AFL. It has been a continuous league. The centenary was celebrated in the 90's.

The PAFC- continuous club but moved to the VFL/AFL
West Coast, Brisbane Bears, Adelaide, Fremantle Gold Coast, GWS, - state-based franchises created to join the AFL.

Norm Smith- played VFL era and still acknowledged with an award on grand final day.
Charles Brownlow
John Coleman.

Today's AFL is a rebadging of the VFL with new teams invited to join. Today is the grand final, played on the MCG which is the centre of the league in metaphorical terms.

It's a victorian league which has been rebadged. No amount of long winded rants from Riggy under the guise that he thinks it's an intelligent discussion will change that.

And stop bringing up american football like it has some relevance to this game, for **** sake.

 

[FisherHawk]

I see tho OP point but not valid.

As a Queenslander, I fully support all the Vic clubs and the way they embrace their traditions and heritage. Just because out of state sides join the comp through the 80's doesn’t mean they should start over again. What if Tasmania, ACT and Northern territory join the comp? Do we start over again. Should the clubs with premierships pre 80's put their cups in a separate room.

The AFL is an expansion of the VFL not a whole new code and it seems only SA and WA fans have an issue with this.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Look agree with the VFL is the AFL comments but I do find it ironic that the AFL will include players in the Hall f Fame who never played in Victoria but will reject all other accolades such as premierships from the non VFL leagues mainly the SANFL and WAFL.

 

[sherb]

It's a great topic, a valid one and one worth discussing.
As far as a year as a cut off line between AFL and VFL I'd have to say that when West Coast entered the VFL was when the first real steps towards a national comp were taken, however flawed those steps were. I'd like to see AFL and State league premierships separated, ie Collingwood have won X VFL and X AFL Premierships and Port Adelaide have won X SANFL and X AFL Premierships. Both should be aknowledged, celebrated and divided, anything else is fabrication and playing with the truth.
History wise, I think many non Victorian supporters get a bit tired of having all things VFL shoved down their throats as the one recognized history of the AFL, it's pretty insulting to be honest and it's about time the AFL hierarchy made an honest point of celebrating and aknowledging the other state and club football histories, and I don't just mean a token Hall of Fame induction.
All State leagues and clubs have had their part in working towards a national competition, not just Victorian ones. This is constantly ignored sometimes it seems, deliberately overlooked and there's no reason that the AFL shouldn't be working towards a public policy of recognition and inclusion. As an example, instead of just past VFL Grand Finals being replayed leading up to the AFL GF, show a replay of a past SANFL or WAFL GF. What's there to lose?
To me, it's about a collective history of our game and one that should be taught and shared, not a history that is censored and revised.

Unfortunately our national comp was formed at a time when many VFL clubs were technically bankrupt and the VFL was desperate to find a way to bankroll their survival, that they did this by undermining the other State leagues is unfortunate to say the least and is no way to start a national football competition. However this is what we've now got and it's with this unfortunate foundation that we need to evolve from and hopefully one day develop a competition that is truely inclusive.
There's no real reason that the kid who watched Sturt demolish Port in 1976 infront of 66,000 at Footy Park shouldn't apsire to see his club play on the national stage one day, he has just as much right as the kid who watched Footscray, St Kilda, Claremont or Subiaco. This possibility never eventuated due to the disappointing circumstances of the past but it need not be the case for the future and the sooner we can move towards a national competition that has a relegation process every 5 years (as an example) the better, in my mind. Every state league club should have the opportunity to EARN right to play on the national stage, not some god given right because of history, football politics or geography. It should've been this from the outset and something football should work towards.
This is not the case and I accept that but it doesn't mean that those histories shouldn't be included much, much more. The non Victorian football public have given up more than anyone for a national competition, and they continue to do so, to have only one history truely celebrated by the AFL is insulting.

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).

 

[Apsaalooke]

The PAFC- continuous club but moved to the VFL/AFL
West Coast, Brisbane Bears, Adelaide, Fremantle Gold Coast, GWS, - state-based franchises created to join the AFL.
quote]
How are these teams "state based" when they represent different areas within a state, as do Victorian clubs.

And when does a "franchise" become a club. All clubs have to have a starting point. Was Footscray, or Port for that matter, a franchise when it started up and then became a club at some mythical point in history?

Interesting that the only so called continuous club in your list has become a laughing stock from once being a great and feared competitor, and the other clubs are enjoying success or look to have a bright future.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Correct.

Its a rant.

 

[____]

For me it depends on who comparing with who.

For example:
Carlton 16 VFL/AFL premierships > Collingwood 15 VFL/AFL premierships
or
Collingwood 2 AFL premierships > Carlton 1 AFL premiership
With my above example it should be okay to count all VFL/AFL premierships or just AFL premierships.

However:
It's West Coast 3 AFL premierships > Collingwood 2 AFL premierships
not
Collingwood 15 VFL/AFL premierships > West Coast 3 VFL/AFL premierships.
If a Collingwood fan is arguing with a West Coast fan, he/she should only count Collingwood premierships won in the AFL, not the VFL.

If an Victorian opposition supporter is arguing about who has won more premierships with me or any other Lions fan, you should either give us the courtesy to let us count our Fitzroy premierships or only count your AFL premierships. And no I do not give a flying **** about legalities. You should compare apples with apples not apples with oranges.

So for example it is either:
Lions 3 AFL premierships > Collingwood 2 AFL premierships
or
Collingwood 15 VFL/AFL premierships > Lions 11 VFL/AFL premierships
not
Collingwood 15 VFL/AFL premierships > Lions 3 VFL/AFL premierships

When I argue with a Gold Coast, GWS, Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coast or Fremantle supporter, I show the courtesy to not count our Fitzroy premierships when arguing about who has more premierships, because it should be an apples with apples comparison, not apples and oranges. If I argue with a Swans supporter it's either that both South Melbourne and Fitzroy count or neither count.

So it's either:
Lions 11 VFL/AFL premierships > Swans 4 (could be 5 after today) VFL/AFL premierships
or
Lions 3 AFL premierships > Swans 1 (could be 2 after today) AFL premierships

 

[Fat Nyfe]

It's too hard to pick an exact year because of the way non-Vic teams have slowly trickled into the comp.

But the records will change, if you disagree you just aren't looking far enough ahead. 100 years from now, there will be no reason to continue integrating VFL records with AFL because there will be no emotional attachment leftover.

 

[B4Bear]

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.

Taking the OP's piece to its logical conclusion, the only premiership that actually counts in the annals of the AFL should be the 2012 one. After all its current format of 18 teams has only been around since the start of the year. That of course means that the Adelaide cups can now be ignored; being no better than North's 1975 one.

 

[Portsmeff]

the issue I have is that the VFL/AFL have self appointed themselves as the governing body of Aussie Rules Football, yet completely ignore and not even acknowledge the existence of the SANFL and WAFL clubs. How the apparent governing body of football can completely ignore South Australian and Western Australian football heritage while at the same time ram down our throats the the VFL heritage of the AFL clubs is a total insult

 

[Monkey King]

LOL. So you're using holiday matches as your evidence? That's kinda stupid. Problem with everything you say is that the AFL is ONE league that has offered over 100 premierships as their prize. What other league's were doing doesn't have much to do with it. These are simply the records of the league you've chosen to support. Expecting them to abandon it all because you have some issue with it is childish.

No one forces you to follow the league of course, so ...

 

[Blind Turn]

It's a great topic, a valid one and one worth discussing.
As far as a year as a cut off line between AFL and VFL I'd have to say that when West Coast entered the VFL was when the first real steps towards a national comp were taken, however flawed those steps were.

If you're going to take this line of argument then the AFL took its first real steps with the creation of the Sydney Swans.

The AFL is built on the history forged by the clubs that formed the VFL and seeing that most of them are still in the AFL, taking away that history would seriously undermine the very fabric of our comp.

 

[Father Jack]

The competition fundamentally changed throughout the late eighties/nineties, and the name change would appear to be a pretty good separation point, but it won't happen and I likely won't lose too much sleep about it, but there's no getting away from the fact that the 1986 season was very different from the 1997 incarnation. But again, like, whatever.

 

[Viceregal]

LIke Everton (post 63) I agree that it depends on the situation and what you are comparing.

If we took the name change as the cutover and recorded it as xx VFL and xx AFL premierships or xx SAAFL and xx AFL premierships would that cost anything or bring a clarifying advantage?

 

[ManOfClay]

If we took the name change as the cutover and recorded it as xx VFL and xx AFL premierships or xx SAAFL and xx AFL premierships would that cost anything or bring a clarifying advantage?

SANFL. The SAAFL is the amateur league.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Look agree with the VFL is the AFL comments but I do find it ironic that the AFL will include players in the Hall f Fame who never played in Victoria but will reject all other accolades such as premierships from the non VFL leagues mainly the SANFL and WAFL.

Premierships are recorded for the VFL/AFL competition. The Hall of Fame relates to the game.

The AFL oversee a competition that only encompasses records from 1897-current under two names ... VFL and AFL. The AFL also oversee the game. These two parts of the AFL are distinct and often cause confusion.

AFL the competition = no requirement to recognise SANFL, WAFL, QAFL, VFA (now VFL), only AFL (previous VFL). These were all rival competitions either competing for sponsorship or crowds OR competing in interstate football OR competiting for players.

AFL the game administration = requirement to recognise all competitions and their histories. This is probably done poorly and in a confusing manner but that confusion is helped by the fact that those competitions have their own administrations to record their history, and often quite insular administrations at that.

 

[Dean Kemp]

Not sure what the confusing bit is.

When the comp was called VFL, Saints won 1 premiership.
When it was called AFL, they won zero.

They have 1 VFL flag / 0 AFL flags.

If they change the name to the International Football League this off season it will be:

West Coast: 0 VFL flags / 3 AFL flags / 0 IFL flags.

 

[Blue and Silver]

On that same very note, the VFL still exists and should do the same on their own time.

Modern VFL is in fact the VFA. AFL is the old VFL.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not sure what the confusing bit is.

When the comp was called VFL, Saints won 1 premiership.
When it was called AFL, they won zero.

They have 1 VFL flag / 0 AFL flags.

If they change the name to the International Football League this off season it will be:

West Coast: 0 VFL flags / 3 AFL flags / 0 IFL flags.

I don't mind this when dissecting the actual competition. It gets murkier when Port want to say 34 SANFL/1 AFL as it then implies the SANFL is related to the AFL or if not, then the VFL is separate to the AFL. Neither are appropriate. The Saints were not formerly members of a now defunct VFL competition. The VFL caterpillar sprouted wings and lives on as a beautiful butterfly.