Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[Dont be a lemon]

NFL teams very much claim and the NFL very much acknowledges NFL championships won before the 'Super Bowl era'. The NFL started in 1920.

No idea what Cat Attack08 is on about...

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Outside of Liverpool, you very rarely hear about league titles in English Football pre-1993

Absolute bullshit. After 2011 everybody who remotely follows English football knew Manchester United had set a record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_champions#Total_titles_won

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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.

When was the major restructure??

 

[Dont be a lemon]

The thing that shits me is how ignored the SANFL and WAFL are. Players who only ever played outside of Victoria are basically ignored. I mean, I'm not petitioning for the AFL to have two timelines (one for the AFL, one for the VFL), but I'd like some more acknowledgement of the non-Victorian players, clubs, and history.

In fairness, the vast majority of pre-1982 VFL players aren't really remembered either. And when they are it's because a) their former club wants to flog merchandise or b) it's grand final week and their old club is in it and the media does 'do it for the old codgers' stories.

 

[The Speaker]

Agree, they're important (to some more than others) and need to be preserved. That is the responsibility of the WAFL and the SANFL, respectively.

They do not have the clout to do so.

The AFL can basically click their fingers to get someone or something into the collective memories of footy fans.

 

[The King!]

This old chesnut, leave it as it is, the history counts, teams joined the then VFL.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

There are several AFL clubs that owe their very existence to the non victorian money and tv rights we bring in, you should be a little nicer to us, you wont have a Victorian in charge of the AFL forever

 

[SpeciousArgument]

When was the major restructure??

If not when west coast joined, then certainly by 1990

 

[The Speaker]

If not when west coast joined, then certainly by 1990

If we were to pick an arbitrary year to choose between old and new, it would be 1987.

The first "true" non-Victorian teams, thus making the competition national.

The introduction of the draft.

The introduction of the salary cap.

Three things that have shaped the AFL to a large degree into what it is today.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

If we were to pick an arbitrary year to choose between old and new, it would be 1987.

The first "true" non-Victorian teams, thus making the competition national.

The introduction of the draft.

The introduction of the salary cap.

Three things that have shaped the AFL to a large degree into what it is today.

I dont oppose clubs claiming records in the previous comp, and teams like the crows/wce/freo that were established to join the comp dont have comparable records, it just seems pretty clear to me that there was a major change around that time, football also became a full time occupation around that era. It helps that I was becoming conscious of football at the same time the crows were formed. if i was a 70 year old carlton supporter i can see how i would feel differently.

It is a national comp, and hanging onto Victorian roots just alienates people for what? a little bit of pride that people who died 40 years before you were born won a football match 80 years before you were born?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Reckon when you feel the need to preface a thread title with the word “rant”, probably a good idea just to give the whole thing a miss.

Major thing that always defeats this argument is that it’s proponents always try to cite precedents that aren’t actually, well, precedents. Like the NFL, which was a merger. Or the Premier League, which was a breakaway competition.

The VFL / AFL is an expansion. Nothing more, nothing less. You might have a point if you try to cite similar examples that are actually similar.

 

[Tas]

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 players are still going to come from here irrespective if there is 1 or 10 teams. The problem is do you want the best talent 'going home' to a handful of clubs? You will create a vacuum of clubs to the point these teams will dominate the competition. There is just too much talent that comes from here to be spread to too few, without more balance it will be problematic. There is no other game on the globe were so much of the talent comes from one place.

 

[Tiger2709]

WAFL and SANFL history and players are just as important as VFL history. Agree with the OP.

Their history is celebrated by these two competitions which have themselves been renamed at different times, as was the VFL, but no matter the VFL and AFL are without any doubt the same competitions, this is really a dead argument as the AFL itself is quite clear about that, just read the history.

I love how old Port Adelaide supporters will say the VFL flags don't count while still counting all the Port flags, even though the SANFL was the renamed SAFA, and WA football supporters also count all their clubs flags even though the WAFL has previously been known as firstly the WAFL then the WANFL then WAFSL, Westar and now back to WAFL.

 

[The Speaker]

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 recognise 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 needs more recognition.

 

[Mighty Chinook]

The history of the VFL, SANFL, WAFL and other leagues should always be preserved, and they should be viewed as solid foundations for the great national competition we have today. Of course, supporters of Victorian teams such as Essendon and Carlton who delude themselves with chatter about sitting on "16 Premierships" are pretty pathetic. Premierships won in the early and mid-1900s really don't mean anything when compared to modern Premierships (i.e. those won after around 1990 as the OP suggests).

Premierships won in the early VFL days were played in a weaker comp (i.e. typically fewer than 10 teams), and there was also no draft system so larger clubs were able to benefit from drawing players from their huge 'zones'. Nowadays, there is a relatively level playing field between teams, which means that winning a Premiership in the modern era is incredibly tough.

As such, the only GF's which mean anything to me are those won after about 1990.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If look at the history of the competition, the structure of the competition, and how it was formed, 1897 is far and away the most significant point in time. The competition was formed then, and 9 out of the 18 current clubs entered. Dates like 1987 and 1990 don’t even compare.

To pretend that the history of the competition “starts” at any other date is just ridiculous.

It’s not perfect, but it makes far more sense to draw a line there than it does to do so at any other date.

 

[Ron The Bear]

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.

Everything else aside, can people please refrain from citing these Mickey Mouse games as evidence that other competitions were equal in strength to the VFL.

tl;dr - "The championship was so one-sided it was almost a joke."

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

What ... like Shell who proudly record their history back to the 1800s, even going as far as mentioning events 50 years prior to getting into the oil business, that lead to their logo?
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/who_we_are/our_history/the_beginnings/

I suggest that if you see a history cut short, you start looking for mergers that bring about new legal entities.

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.

So you think the people should decide when things are significantly different and just start a new arbitrary date for what is relevant to them? Would that not then be in the eye of the beholder, rather than any factual history?

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.

You call my argument ill conceived and illogical. Again, do you see any fundamental differences between these restructures and that of the AFL?

Perhaps we should recognize Olympic records from 776BCE

The Ancient Olympics were largely political and religious. Most events were vastly different, and they were extremely exclusive. They also only ran until 393AD or 435AD depending on which Theodosius canned them.

The resurrection in 1896 after at least a 1461 year absence might raise questions about continuity or whether the same entity was running them, or is that illogical too?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

If look at the history of the competition, the structure of the competition, and how it was formed, 1897 is far and away the most significant point in time. The competition was formed then, and 9 out of the 18 current clubs entered. Dates like 1987 and 1990 don’t even compare.

To pretend that the history of the competition “starts” at any other date is just ridiculous.

It’s not perfect, but it makes far more sense to draw a line there than it does to do so at any other date.

But it still only tells part of the story. Why should Essendons Premierships count but Port Adelaides not? what about Freo?

 

[dblue8]

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.

Well what ever the boardroom dealings were, the end result, the way I read it was that the VFL/AFL pushed for the disbanding of the Australian Football Council in 1993 and took over the governance of the sport. I would suggest the representation of football leagues on the AFC was more representative and national than the Ross Oakley led AFL Commission that took over - with the interest of a single competition in mind.

 

[teknodeejay]

This old chestnut rears its head again.

If you don't like the number of premierships accredited to your team as a measure of self worth, support a club who has more.

In the case of Freo, not sure what advice to offer there...

 

[sherb]

But it still only tells part of the story. Why should Essendons Premierships count but Port Adelaides not? what about Freo?

Port's premiership in 2004 does count.

 

[Simple Jack]

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.

And this is EXACTLY what happened with the VFL/AFL. Several teams formed a break away league in 1897, and pre-1897 records aren't included.

When was the major restructure??

1897.

But it still only tells part of the story. Why should Essendons Premierships count but Port Adelaides not? what about Freo?

Because Port Adelaide left the league they won all their premierships in and moved to the league where Essendon won theirs. If they moved back to the SANFL (Replacing the current SANFL entity that was formed in '97) I'm sure they would be able to claim them all again with no arguments.

Serious question for SANFL fans, if Port did move back would the SANFL count their AFL flag in their SANFL tally?

Freo haven't yet won a flag in the only league they've played in. If they do, no one will argue against it.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

But it still only tells part of the story. Why should Essendons Premierships count but Port Adelaides not? what about Freo?

They all count. The ones won in this competition, that is.

Depends what story you’re telling. If it’s that of Port, they can and will tell their history as they choose. Reality is, part of Port’s history includes moving into a new league.

In terms of Port’s SANFL flags, I’m sure they recognise them at a club level, and good luck to them. But expecting them to be recognised by a completely separate competition, after you choose to move competitions, is just stupid.

It’s as stupid as suggesting Essendon’s VFA flags should be counted as VFL / AFL premierships. They were won in a separate competition. They’re part of the club’s history, which is all well and good, but you don’t move competitions, and then try to demand that new competition recognises them.

Freo is one thing we all agree on: zero.

It really is all ridiculously straightforward. I don't see how people don't get it.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

They all count. The ones won in this competition, that is.

Depends what story you’re telling. If it’s that of Port, they can and will tell their history as they choose. Reality is, part of Port’s history includes moving into a new league.

In terms of Port’s SANFL flags, I’m sure they recognise them at a club level, and good luck to them. But expecting them to be recognised by a completely separate competition, after you choose to move competitions, is just stupid.

It’s as stupid as suggesting Essendon’s VFA flags should be counted as VFL / AFL premierships. They were won in a separate competition. They’re part of the club’s history, which is all well and good, but you don’t move competitions, and then try to demand that new competition recognises them.

Freo is one thing we all agree on: zero.

It really is all ridiculously straightforward. I don't see how people don't get it.

thats because you follow a club based in victoria.