Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[LightTower4]

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

like the vfl?

The VFL of the time was not a second tier competition. At the time of the nationalisation, it was the premier competition in the world.

Kudos for staying true to your username however.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

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

Good post, to me it should be 82 or 87, when the league expanded outside Victoria. TBH this wont happen until 60s past beyond the majority of AFL supporters living memory.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Good post, to me it should be 82 or 87, when the league expanded outside Victoria. TBH this wont happen until 60s past beyond the majority of AFL supporters living memory.

How many organisations that you know of have discounted the first century of their existence because it wasn't convenient to compare that history to their modern day appearance? Do you expect supporters in 100 years time to discount or count separately premierships from 1990 to now, because they will probably look amateurish or lacking in skill to how they will then?

 

[Probitas_]

I don't really see why it would matter to you. Be happy with your teams success since they entered the league, I know I am.
Clubs that are holding onto premierships from the distant past aren't just going to pretend like they didn't happen.
For a lot of the Vic clubs the only thing they have to hold on to is their history. And hey, that's fine, but everyone can see who the real success stories have been in living memory, and that's all that really matters.

 

[sherb]

I don't really see why it would matter to you. Be happy with your teams success since they entered the league, I know I am.
Clubs that are holding onto premierships from the distant past aren't just going to pretend like they didn't happen.
For a lot of the Vic clubs the only thing they have to hold on to is their history. And hey, that's fine, but everyone can see who the real success stories have been in living memory, and that's all that really matters.

When you say clubs are holding onto premierships or their history you are implying that they are things that could be let go of.

They are simply recording and recognizing their history. From their inception.

In 100 years' time the Eagles achievements to date will be in the distant past too. But I am sure the club will still recognize them.

Because that's what clubs do.

 

[Boxhead_31]

How many organisations that you know of have discounted the first century of their existence because it wasn't convenient to compare that history to their modern day appearance? Do you expect supporters in 100 years time to discount or count separately premierships from 1990 to now, because they will probably look amateurish or lacking in skill to how they will then?

The NFL is one that springs to mind
The Packers have won 13 championships but only 4 Super Bowls and as such aren't credited with the most titles, the Steelers with 6 Super Bowl titles are even though they are playing in the same league they have played in since 1919

 

[dblue8]

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.

Once the old national football council whatever it was called disappeared, it seems there was no body coordinating the overall direction of football in Australia. The VFL simply bestowed this honour upon itself as it grew into the AFL living off the fat of other state leagues.

So I suppose I have to say congratulations, the VFL has achieved great success in propping up its own clubs by pillaging the rest of the country, SA and WA in particular. I still don't know if the AFL really has a true national agenda because it remains so VFL centric in so many of it actions.

As for me, yes I follow the AFL and the Crows because it's the best footy going round, but despite living in Brisbane for 20 twenty years, my heart and soul remains where I was born and bred - Sturt. Every state league is entitled to have its history honored in a national hall of fame but we don't have a truly national independent body running the game. It's run by the pseudo AFL - the VFL which has a vested interest in all things VFL. Have seen little over the years to convince me otherwise. A simple example - when Stephen Kernahan was inducted into the hall of fame his 100+ games for Glenelg in the SANFL before moving to Carlton were not mentioned in his list of achievements.

Your own comments Old Dark Navy are confused re 'AFL the game administration'. You say the administration should acknowledge the history of all leagues but in the same sentence you say they have their own administrations. There lies the problem. How can the AFL/VFL administration run the AFL and act independently on all national matters such as the hall of fame?

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Not sure what this thread is about.

Congrats to the Swans on their 5th premiership, anyway.

 

[Dazb86]

Explain to me why the SANFL has an N in it's name and I'll tell you why the VFL records should still stand in an AFL setting.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Once the old national football council whatever it was called disappeared, it seems there was no body coordinating the overall direction of football in Australia. The VFL simply bestowed this honour upon itself as it grew into the AFL living off the fat of other state leagues.

The old commission basically found themselves redundant in the face of a national competition. The VFL didn't bestow the honour upon itself, the commission basically handed it over to the AFL.

So I suppose I have to say congratulations, the VFL has achieved great success in propping up its own clubs by pillaging the rest of the country, SA and WA in particular. I still don't know if the AFL really has a true national agenda because it remains so VFL centric in so many of it actions.

As for me, yes I follow the AFL and the Crows because it's the best footy going round, but despite living in Brisbane for 20 twenty years, my heart and soul remains where I was born and bred - Sturt. Every state league is entitled to have its history honored in a national hall of fame but we don't have a truly national independent body running the game. It's run by the pseudo AFL - the VFL which has a vested interest in all things VFL. Have seen little over the years to convince me otherwise. A simple example - when Stephen Kernahan was inducted into the hall of fame his 100+ games for Glenelg in the SANFL before moving to Carlton were not mentioned in his list of achievements.

Your own comments Old Dark Navy are confused re 'AFL the game administration'. You say the administration should acknowledge the history of all leagues but in the same sentence you say they have their own administrations. There lies the problem. How can the AFL/VFL administration run the AFL and act independently on all national matters such as the hall of fame?

The AFL administration of Australian Football e.g the code, should be separate. They can run it but the roles should be filled by separate people with a clear distinction between competition and code. IMO it is what has caused most of the issues and causes people to feel ignored and they keep going back to the VFL separation to find that sense of identity, and this is the wrong path IMO.

Look at the AFL website. All about the competition, little bit about the code, all mashed in together. Even the competition records are difficult to keep track of so they are doing nothing well. Home page should be a portal showing AFL competition and AFL the game and you click on either depending on what you want to read about. The former should contain records from 1897 to now, and only the records of players in that competition. The latter should contain records from all state competitions (with a link back to the AFL comp pages for VFL) and links to SANFL and WAFL websites for more concise records.

The AFL comp should have a Hall of Fame only for participants in its competition. The AFL code should link to all competition hall of fames. The AFL code should have a hall of fame whereby participants from the code are represented, not merely VFL/AFL players with a couple of token SANFL or WAFL legends.

It's the desire to be all things to all people, rather than just a competition, that has stuffed this up.

 

[dblue8]

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.

"...competing against Victorian clubs was more important..." ...... please. Get your hand off it.

 

[mcgarnacle]

all those other leagues the OP mentions had a catalyst event which led to a new league setup or a significant game in which the championship is determined.

The NFL had the merger of two competitions of the NFL & upstart AFL which became the NFC & AFC in the modern NFL and incorporated the Superbowl in 1967 as a decider between the champions of the two conferences.

Similar with MLB with two separate league champions playing off in the World Series from 1903.

Premier League is a totally new vehicle of the premier division in England. Of course it is going to promote the history of its competition. It was essentially a breakaway competition from the English Football League. Once again, a significant event. But to say that Division 1 titles prior to this are ignored is absurd.

What is the significant event that led to a change in the AFL? It's very much grey. A relocation of a team to Sydney in 1982 didn't alter the structure of the competition at all. Neither did the drip feed of new licenses between 1987 & 2012.

If their was one significant season where all expansion teams were added, then it would be easy to take that season as the definitive inception of the AFL competition. But that is not the case. The significant event in football in relation to this competition is 1897. That's when the league came into being in it's current form with changes being amendments to the same organisation, and not a completely new vehicle or structure.

 

[Tas]

The whole point about the AFL is that it really doesn't have borders any longer. A great footballer will come through get recognised, picked up and play in the AFL. You can't change the past. AFL is still far too dependant on Victoria for players (over half come from here) and for revenue, until that changes then it will always lean heavier towards Victoria.

 

[00Stinger]

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.

Selective results there. Look at the night series reults in the 70's-80's the SANFL and WAFL teams had their asses handed to them on a plate. How many top line Victorians went to prove themselves in SA or WA? How many WA/SA players came to Vic to test themselves against the best?

I see your point, but do the NRL cease in counting all premierships to clubs pre 97 as the game had not truely gone national until the Storm entered the league?
Does the NBA refuse to count all titles won by the teams pre 1995 as Toronto/vancouver had not joined the league?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

As far as I can see, we all have to start again now because of GWS.

Well done Sydney, you have the most flags, everyone else has zero.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The NFL is one that springs to mind
The Packers have won 13 championships but only 4 Super Bowls and as such aren't credited with the most titles, the Steelers with 6 Super Bowl titles are even though they are playing in the same league they have played in since 1919

You sure about that?

7 separate competitions merged to form the American Professional Football Association is 1920 and then changed the name to NFL in 1922. NFL history shows from 1920 so incorporates the previous name.

The NFL Hall of Fame goes back to 1919 interestingly.

Take the Green Bay Packers. They were formed in 1919 and spent their first year in existence playing against local opponents. They then applied for a license in the national league and played in 1921. Take a look at CBS's NFL history page for example. It refers to the Bears history from 1921 to present. It is clearly NFL history they are talking about, not game history.

The two histories associated with the NFL exist because the American Football League and the National Football League were competitors. The AFL known as the lesser comp starting taking players from the NFL and gaining momentum. This lead to the truce and merger between the two, keeping the NFL name but having a larger comp with the AFC and the NFC conferences. This also brought about the advent of the Super Bowl, which does have its own recorded history.

When you look back at NFL history though, they do tend to record everything from 1920 and include AFL and NFL teams.

The NFL/AFL example has little to do with the VFL/AFL example. It was quite clearly a merger with concessions.

 

[Slattery_20]

Does anyone on here really think they're going to re-set public (or more than a small handful of private) perceptions?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As far as I can see, we all have to start again now because of GWS.

Well done Sydney, you have the most flags, everyone else has zero.

All hail Sydney, greatest team ever in the history of the 18 team AFL competition.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Does anyone on here really think they're going to re-set public (or more than a small handful of private) perceptions?

I don't care. It's all about satisfying my OCD needs.

 

[Boxhead_31]

You sure about that?

7 separate competitions merged to form the American Professional Football Association is 1920 and then changed the name to NFL in 1922. NFL history shows from 1920 so incorporates the previous name.

The NFL Hall of Fame goes back to 1919 interestingly.

Take the Green Bay Packers. They were formed in 1919 and spent their first year in existence playing against local opponents. They then applied for a license in the national league and played in 1921. Take a look at CBS's NFL history page for example. It refers to the Bears history from 1921 to present. It is clearly NFL history they are talking about, not game history.

The two histories associated with the NFL exist because the American Football League and the National Football League were competitors. The AFL known as the lesser comp starting taking players from the NFL and gaining momentum. This lead to the truce and merger between the two, keeping the NFL name but having a larger comp with the AFC and the NFC conferences. This also brought about the advent of the Super Bowl, which does have its own recorded history.

When you look back at NFL history though, they do tend to record everything from 1920 and include AFL and NFL teams.

The NFL/AFL example has little to do with the VFL/AFL example. It was quite clearly a merger with concessions.

They record the history but don't acknowledge any title's not won in the Super Bowl era when the AFL and NFL merged when talking about which teams have won the most titles.
Think of the NFL as the VFL and the AFL as WAFL/SANFL licencee's

 

[Blues_Man]

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

I'm not a Victorianh and i realise the VFLand AFL are the same entity...you South Australians and Western Australians need to lose your need craving for acceptance and realise the VFL was the strongest comp in the land...your local teams whilst being ok and full of great players was nowhere near the strength of the VFL ....i don't know any young players from tassie aspiring to go and play in Adelaide or Perth ...they all had ambitions to make it in the VFL .
So stop trying to rewrite history due to your feelings of inadequacy and envy.

 

[dblue8]

The whole point about the AFL is that it really doesn't have borders any longer. A great footballer will come through get recognised, picked up and play in the AFL. You can't change the past. AFL is still far too dependant on Victoria for players (over half come from here) and for revenue, until that changes then it will always lean heavier towards Victoria.

Naturally if more than half the teams are Victorian and you have maybe half the national Aussie Rules population of all the traditional states, then you will have a similar ratio of players.

Given the number of teams I don't see the comp being too dependent on Victoria. Not sure what you mean by that. I don't agree about the revenue dominance of Victoria. All the other state clubs have to find their own local market sponsors just like Melbourne clubs. Media rights revenues come from the competition as a whole which all clubs contribute to the strength of this deal by providing national exposure. This is not something that could be achieved by Melbourne based clubs alone. Maybe I missed your point?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

They record the history but don't acknowledge any title's not won in the Super Bowl era when the AFL and NFL merged when talking about which teams have won the most titles.
Think of the NFL as the VFL and the AFL as WAFL/SANFL licencee's

You can't. There was no merger of separate entities. The Super Bowl era represents a merger of two competitions and the formation of a playoff game between the two conferences they became.

The VFL did not merge with the new licencees.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

How many organisations that you know of have discounted the first century of their existence because it wasn't convenient to compare that history to their modern day appearance?

Any oil company makes a good example. your argument is ill concieved and illogical.

Do you expect supporters in 100 years time to discount or count separately premierships from 1990 to now, because they will probably look amateurish or lacking in skill to how they will then?

Yes i do actually.

People will say, great grandad, who were Port Adelaide and why did they stop playing in the AFL in 2014?

They will also say much like we do now, that what happened in 2012 has no bearing on what is happening in 2112.

In other leagues around the world, where major restructuring has occurred, what happened prior to the restructuring is recognized as history, but not as relevant.

Perhaps we should recognize Olympic records from 776BCE