Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[sherb]

Seriously, come clean. You are surely using that username to troll .. right? Or you are out of your depth and still trying to fire an unloaded gun.

Answer the points put to you rather than throw your toys out of the pram.

Yeah, he's got to be trolling. No doubt.

 

[Blackas87]

Their should be a clear distinction between the 2 types of flags.
VFL flags don't get upgraded just because of Victorian egos.

They don't get downgraded just because there is a few more teams in the comp

 

[Monkey King]

thats because you follow a club based in victoria.

This has nothing to do with Victoria or South Australia. It's simply that the AFL is a single continuous competition. This year for example, the AFL offered its 116th premiership; pretty soon the AFL will release its 116th Annual Report. It's winner records reflect these 116 seasons. It's really quite ridiculous that anyone would expect the AFL to record premierships won in another comp among their seasons winners. That would be like the SANFL including Carlton's flags in their records, or the WAFL recording Norwood flags in theirs. Just bizarre really.

 

[The Speaker]

My experience is that where Victorians tend to be dismissive of other states, the others hate Victoria.

When Victoria took a chartered flight to WA to play a State of Origin match in 1981, they were forced to make an unscheduled stop in outback SA due to a faulty door. While wiring the door closed, the local handyman asked, "Who are these blokes, anyway?" The pilot replied, "They're a group of Victorian footballers travelling to Perth to play against Western Australia." Handyman (overheard by some of the Victorian contingent): "I hope they all bloody well fall out."

Makes sense to dislike those who are dismissive of you, does it not?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The point for me isnt 'is the afl/vfl as an administration the same entity as it was since its inception'

The point is it is now a national competition and claiming that pre 1980 football is relevant to the modern era is kind of well... stupid...

Just as claiming the round robin premiership of 1897 or the four team war torn flag of 1916, is somehow comparable to the Hawthorn flag of 1989. They are poles apart, further apart than the 1989 flag is to the 2012 flag. What's stupid is that evolution makes something a completely different entity to what it started out.

 

[Rob]

They don't get downgraded just because there is a few more teams in the comp

No, they get downgraded because they were regional state league flags signifying champions of Victoria. Completely uncomparable to an AFL flag today which indisputably represents the champions of Australia.

It's not that they shouldn't count, it's that they don't represent as big an achievement.

 

[MarkCatsFan]

WAFL and SANFL were great leagues. The fact that teams like WCE and Adelaide were able to join and have almost immediate impact proves it. I personally think it is very sad that the fact these teams joined the AFL turned the once elite level of the WAFL and SANFL into VFA level competitions.

But yes I agree that it is stupid that some clubs hang onto Premierships won in 1903 etc. Anybody who saw the recent 'South Melbourne vs Carlton 1909' thread would surely realise that it's not the same game at all. VFL premierships pre-1987, 92, 97 (whichever you choose) should at least be counted on the same level as WAFL and SANFL titles from that era.

Personally I'm happy to just discount pre-AFL history and say the competition as it is started in 1997 when Port joined and Fitzroy became Brisbane. Then in 10 years when the Suns has won a premiership we can start the argument all over again

 

[Ron The Bear]

Makes sense to dislike those who are dismissive of you, does it not?

Yeah. The sense of rivalry's more acute outside Victoria, though. Verging on paranoia on this board at times.

 

[Ron The Bear]

No, they get downgraded because they were regional state league flags signifying champions of Victoria. Completely uncomparable to an AFL flag today which indisputably represents the champions of Australia.

It's not that they shouldn't count, it's that they don't represent as big an achievement.

Not any more than the World Series decides 'world champions'. A premiership signifies the champions of a competition. Some posters here have contended that the VFA was of comparable strength to the VFL at various points.

I'm happy to concede that premierships are tougher to win right now than ever, but that doesn't mean that if in a few years there are a number of basket case easybeats who end up going the way of Fitzroy, that a line should be drawn to distinguish what follows.

 

[chazwazza]

I don't think anyone is asking for the premierships won in the VFL to be forgotten, only that they be recognised as being won in a state based comp and not a "national" one. ie the "x" VFL flags and the "x" AFL flags, the same respect should be afforded to Port.
Do we want to evolve and move towards a truer national comp or not? Do Victorian clubs, football leaders and supporters want to block any possibility of this happening for the sake of basking in the light of past glories in a comp that was merely state based.
If the comp isn't allowed to evolve on ALL fronts it will slowly become irrelevant. There are bigger issues determining the future of football other than the old VFL. The sooner we take a leaf out of the NRL and grant the GF to the team which earnt the right to host it the better. The same goes with hosting the Brownlow, the draft etc etc.
The manic and blinkered grasp that Victorian football wish to desperately control the game with is becoming outdated. It's time for this comp to expand its views or it will continue to not be taken seriously as a true national comp.
What does it wish to be?
What do the supporters want it to be?

 

[sherb]

The history of a competition isn't about the equivalence of achievements in various eras. It is simply about documenting those various achievements over the years.

It is an important distinction to understand in this discussion.

 

[sherb]

Eg - Test Cricket is recorded back to 1877.

That isn't saying that the game in 1877 was anything like it is today.

It is simply documenting history.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No, they get downgraded because they were regional state league flags signifying champions of Victoria. Completely uncomparable to an AFL flag today which indisputably represents the champions of Australia.

It's not that they shouldn't count, it's that they don't represent as big an achievement.

Or they count alongside flags in a continuous history and smart people work out what the differences where themselves, whilst insecure revisionists just kid themselves.

 

[Rob]

Or they count alongside flags in a continuous history and smart people work out what the differences where themselves, whilst insecure revisionists just kid themselves.

See Dan26's ranking of VFL & AFL premiership sides. His number 2 possibly isn't even the best team in the country.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

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?

You have missed the point here by so much it's embarrassing.

Victorian clubs are hanging on to their Victorian roots? What does that even mean?

Clubs revere their own history in their own competition in order to alienate or irritate people? How does that work?

 

[Rob]

Eg - Test Cricket is recorded back to 1877.

That isn't saying that the game in 1877 was anything like it is today.

It is simply documenting history.

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.

 

[sherb]

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.

Test cricket today isn't about Australia's best vs England's best. That only occurs periodically.

Where were South Africa, Pakistan, the West Indies, India, New Zealand, etc in Test Cricket in 1877?

 

[Dan26]

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

You're missing the point entirely.

Your whole "logic" seems to be that because the AFL is now national that means its not the same anymore.

The standard of the league is irrelevant. How "national" the league is is also irrelevant.

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

Yes we all know that when Essendon won premierships prior to 1987 they were not "national." No one ever said they were. But they were still just as hard to win because the relative stanard of the league for everyone was the same. It's just as hard to win a country-league premiership, for instance, because the standard of the league is the same for everyone.

The current league began in 1897. New teams have been added at various times in 1908, 1925, 1987 etc etc. The standard has increased, but it is the same league.

You talk about the NFL. NFL records do NOT go back only to 1967. They go back all the way to when the league began in the 1920's. Green Bay have officially won 13 NFL championships. 4 of those were in the Superbowl era (1967 onwards) but the others still count in NFL history. All 13 of them count as NFL titles. Because the Superbowl itself is such a huge event people will often refer to "superbowl titles" but the NFL themselves recognise ALL NFL titles in their history. They always have.

You say its arrogant that the AFL doesn't recognise the SANFL and WAFL? What???

The SANFL is a different league. Why would the AFL "count" the premierships for Port in that league? Yes they are part of Port's history but they have zero relevance to the history of the VFL-AFL. The AFL don't recognise Willimastown's 15 VFA premiership. Are you saying they should?

The facts are that the AFL is a 116 year old league that has grown into a national league, but all the premierships count because the standard and nationality of a league is totally irreleant when compiling historical statistics.

 

[Burzum]

You joined our league, our records and history stand.

 

[The Speaker]

You joined our league, our records and history stand.

So they should.

But that does not mean that WAFL and SANFL records and history should be ignored by a competition that claims to be national.

 

[dblue8]

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.

 

[ManOfClay]

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.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I don't think anyone is asking for the premierships won in the VFL to be forgotten, only that they be recognised as being won in a state based comp and not a "national" one. ie the "x" VFL flags and the "x" AFL flags, the same respect should be afforded to Port.
Do we want to evolve and move towards a truer national comp or not? Do Victorian clubs, football leaders and supporters want to block any possibility of this happening for the sake of basking in the light of past glories in a comp that was merely state based.
If the comp isn't allowed to evolve on ALL fronts it will slowly become irrelevant. There are bigger issues determining the future of football other than the old VFL. The sooner we take a leaf out of the NRL and grant the GF to the team which earnt the right to host it the better. The same goes with hosting the Brownlow, the draft etc etc.
The manic and blinkered grasp that Victorian football wish to desperately control the game with is becoming outdated. It's time for this comp to expand its views or it will continue to not be taken seriously as a true national comp.
What does it wish to be?
What do the supporters want it to be?

How on earth does recording the continuity of the competition take away from it being a national competition now? Grand final hosting, draft hosting, Brownlow hosting maybe, but the Brownlow and Draft has already been hosted elsewhere and it is still a logistical nightmare because the majority of teams are still concentrated on one side of the country. The NRL have not hosted the GF anywhere but Sydney as yet. The NFL and the Superbowl does that though.

Every time somebody tries to say that the VFL flags should be counted separately the same as the Port SANFL ones, they are suggesting that there was a cessation date to the VFL to cause that history to stop. Nothing wrong with taking pride in your longevity within a competition. SANFL clubs and WAFL clubs get to count a continual history. AFL clubs that were there when it was called the VFL do that too. They don't count the VFA flags because they were clearly in a different competition so they count them in their own histories.

If they called a cessation to the AFL tomorrow, invited teams to rejoin and restarted the comp from a forward date, I'm am happy to accept a new competition. It should not be based on non-Vic annoyance or arbitrary lines as to when something changed more significantly than another time it changed. It just sets a silly precedent that might be dragged out in the future when something else changes significantly (i.e international teams).

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

So they should.

But that does not mean that WAFL and SANFL records and history should be ignored by a competition that claims to be national.

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.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

See Dan26's ranking of VFL & AFL premiership sides. His number 2 possibly isn't even the best team in the country.