Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

He was suggesting that the AFL competition records should continue to be recorded in their totality including VFL. He is suggesting that as the keeper of the code, AFL the body can record things in more dissected terms.

You will still hear that Sydney have won their 5th AFL flag however, for the sake of expediency, when the competition is being discussed.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

Why do you think VFA records are not recorded by the AFL? Need a hint?

 

[Monkey King]

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.

Different comp dude! That's why.

The AFL is VFL and vice-versa. Yes it's pretty different now to what it was 50 years ago and that to 50 years before it, but it's the same comp. If this isn't true, then for sure the Port Adelaide club in the AFL today is not the one established in 1870. The AFL's Port of 1997 had a raft of differences to the SANFL's of 1996. Meanwhile the AFL was exactly the same in form and function from 1989 to 1990.

So we agreed then? Port were founded in 1997 and the AFL began in 1990? Some consistency please!

 

[TigerCraig]

This just seems the weirdest argument

The AFL is the VFL rebranded. Fullstop. All the VFL records are relevant. Nothing else matters to the AFL and nor should it.

The real issue is that the AFL shouldn't run both the game and the major competition.

The NRL doesn't seem to have this problem.The old NSWRL records continue on - other than asterisks for the Superleague period.Noone doubts that South Sydney have the most premierships - even though their last was in 1971 or argues that St George's record 11 in a row should be ignored. Noone argues that Redcliffe or Brisbane Souths QRL premierships should count.

 

[Monkey King]

This just seems the weirdest argument

The AFL is the VFL rebranded. Fullstop. All the VFL records are relevant. Nothing else matters to the AFL and nor should it.

It just gets real weird when Port posters pipe up with their "but we're PAFC" tripe. When you have supporters of a massively rebranded club, with new colours, a new nickname, in a new competition, with a new supporter base; still claiming recognition to a 100+ year old history, while simultaneously claiming the AFL is this new thing started in 1990, you know something stinks.

 

[Dandy_GO]

The AFL is VFL and vice-versa.

No, the VFL became the AFL. Prior to this, the VFL was not the AFL. It was the major competition in Victoria. Not the national competition. There was no national competition. A blatant distinction many Victorians refuse to acknowledge.

 

[sherb]

This just seems the weirdest argument

The AFL is the VFL rebranded. Fullstop. All the VFL records are relevant. Nothing else matters to the AFL and nor should it.

The real issue is that the AFL shouldn't run both the game and the major competition.

A nice, concise summation.

 

[TigerCraig]

No, the VFL became the AFL. Prior to this, the VFL was not the AFL. It was the major competition in Victoria. Not the national competition. There was no national competition. A blatant distinction many Victorians refuse to acknowledge.

But thats not the point. It doesn't matter if it was the national comp, the strongest state comp, the weakest state comp or anything else. It is the league that has happened to grow to be the preeminent one, and has taken its member clubs along for the ride.

 

[Monkey King]

No, the VFL became the AFL. Prior to this, the VFL was not the AFL. It was the major competition in Victoria. Not the national competition. There was no national competition. A blatant distinction many Victorians refuse to acknowledge.

Prior to 1997 there was no Port Adelaide in the AFL. Same logic.

So we agree then? The AFL started in 1990 and Port were founded in 1997. Yes?

Rubbish argument!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This just seems the weirdest argument

The AFL is the VFL rebranded. Fullstop. All the VFL records are relevant. Nothing else matters to the AFL and nor should it.

The real issue is that the AFL shouldn't run both the game and the major competition.

The NRL doesn't seem to have this problem.The old NSWRL records continue on - other than asterisks for the Superleague period.Noone doubts that South Sydney have the most premierships - even though their last was in 1971 or argues that St George's record 11 in a row should be ignored. Noone argues that Redcliffe or Brisbane Souths QRL premierships should count.

Also, you don't see Brisbane, Nth Qld, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Melbourne or New Zealand supporters claiming that this should be changed because the competition is now (inter)national.

 

[Ron The Bear]

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.

But that's just it - there is no significant connection between those clubs or competitions and the VFL/AFL. They are, as painful as it might be to hear, irrelevant in the scheme of things.

I have no objection to sherb's proposal re an independent custodial body being formed in the interests of preserving the history of football Australia-wide. It could theoretically assume responsibility for the Australian Football Hall of Fame and perhaps redress the imbalances therein, though I'm not sure whether that's politically workable. But it ain't gonna happen in the current climate because there's no money in it for the AFL. I'd be only mildly interested, and most Victorians would be less interested than me.

 

[Roylion]

......and Fitzroy became Brisbane.

What the...? When did this happen?

 

[Ron The Bear]

No, the VFL became the AFL. Prior to this, the VFL was not the AFL. It was the major competition in Victoria. Not the national competition. There was no national competition. A blatant distinction many Victorians refuse to acknowledge.

Yet clubs from New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia competed in this Victorian Football League.

Perhaps we should just start again when Tasmania gets a team.

 

[ManOfClay]

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

Wrong. 1924, Essendon were VFL premiers. Footscray VFA. Footscray defeated Essendon to be champion of Victoria.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Ten-strong stable of VFL-era sides in Victoria = 10 apples

Sydney-nee-South Melbourne = another apple

West Coast, Adelaide, Freo, Port, GC and GWS = 6 oranges

Brisbane/Fitzroy = red herring.

Comparing Carlton and Collingwood is comparing apples with apples.

Comparing West Coast and Adelaide is comparing oranges with oranges.

Comparing Essendon with Freo is comparing an apple with an orange..

The question is, does anybody ever really do the latter?

Vic clubs have their rivalries steeped in tradition and lore, with plenty of one-upsmanship- nothing is ever going to change that.

If a Collingwood fan was to say to a Port fan: "Haha you know nothing about premierships, 15>1".. then I'd say that supporter is an idiot.

If a West Coast fan was to say to a Geelong fan "You reckon you're better than us because you say you have 9 premierships, but guess what? You're not!".. then I'd say that supporter is insecure.

Premierships are displayed like a peacock's plumage- they look beautiful, but the display is only intended to impress other peacocks. The peacock is not trying to attract a female Eagle- what would be the point? Similarly, it is not trying to outshine a male Crow. It's just doing what a peacock has always done, and what a peacock always will do.. competing with the other peacocks. Or with other apples. My head hurts.

 

[MightyHawks]

No, the VFL became the AFL. Prior to this, the VFL was not the AFL. It was the major competition in Victoria. Not the national competition. There was no national competition. A blatant distinction many Victorians refuse to acknowledge.

Are you arguing that because South Australia weren't involved the competition wasn't national?

We had teams in 2 different states from 1982

Teams in 4 different states from 1987

The competition rebranded in 1990 but no change to the teams

Teams in 5 different states from 1991

So let me get this right... you want to only count things from 1990 onwards because prior to this the competition wasn't national, because as you rightly pointed out, it only became national in 1991 when a South Australian team joined thus meaning all Australian States were represented... except Tasmania...

Why does 1990 count when 1987-1989 don't according to you?

 

[MightyHawks]

Ten-strong stable of VFL-era sides in Victoria = 10 apples

Sydney-nee-South Melbourne = another apple

West Coast, Adelaide, Freo, Port, GC and GWS = 6 oranges

Brisbane/Fitzroy = red herring.

Comparing Carlton and Collingwood is comparing apples with apples.

Comparing West Coast and Adelaide is comparing oranges with oranges.

Comparing Essendon with Freo is comparing an apple with an orange..

The question is, does anybody ever really do the latter?

Vic clubs have their rivalries steeped in tradition and lore, with plenty of one-upsmanship- nothing is ever going to change that.

If a Collingwood fan was to say to a Port fan: "Haha you know nothing about premierships, 15>1".. then I'd say that supporter is an idiot.

If a West Coast fan was to say to a Geelong fan "You reckon you're better than us because you say you have 9 premierships, but guess what? You're not!".. then I'd say that supporter is insecure.

Premierships are displayed like a peacock's plumage- they look beautiful, but the display is only intended to impress other peacocks. The peacock is not trying to attract a female Eagle- what would be the point? Similarly, it is not trying to outshine a male Crow. It's just doing what a peacock has always done, and what a peacock always will do.. competing with the other peacocks. Or with other apples. My head hurts.

All premierships obviously count.

Personally I'm most interested in the ones that have happened in my lifetime

Individual clubs are most interested in how they've traveled relative to other clubs

From Hawthorn's perspective, in comparison to the other Victorian teams:
Since 1925:
Carlton 11
Melbourne 11
Hawthorn 10
Essendon 10
Collingwood 10
Geelong 9
Richmond 8
Swans 5
North 4
St. Kilda 1
Bulldogs 1

From 1925 to 1996:
Hawthorn 9
Fitzroy 1

Since 1987:
Hawthorn 4
West Coast 3
Brisbane Bears/Lions/Fitzroy 3

Since 1991
Hawthorn 2
Adelaide 2

Since 1995
Hawthorn 1
Fremantle 0

Since 1997
Hawthorn 1
Port 1

Since 2011
Hawthorn 0
Gold Coast 0

Since 2012
Hawthorn 0
GWS 0

A win over the Swans on Saturday and we'd be equal or better than everyone in direct comparison

 

[The_Eagles]

Did anyone see the graphs on On the Couch, had premierships and number of finals since 1990, intimating the modern era and success gauges. Hell 1990 or at least 1993 is when movies music and fashion sort of became recognizable to us now. WCE lead both graphs btw

 

[Son of Skeletor]

Wrong. 1924, Essendon were VFL premiers. Footscray VFA. Footscray defeated Essendon to be champion of Victoria.

Was it still called 'Champion of the Colony' back then? I'm pretty sure it was at some point.

 

[The King!]

Lets just start from 2012 when gws joined

 

[Ron The Bear]

Was it still called 'Champion of the Colony' back then? I'm pretty sure it was at some point.

That was an award, superficially equivalent to the Brownlow. I've read somewhere that some historians dispute that it ever existed.

 

[dblue8]

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.

I don't have a dilemma. Go the Blues .... ohhh not your Blues.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

That was an award, superficially equivalent to the Brownlow. I've read somewhere that some historians dispute that it ever existed.

I tell you what, it'd make a rare and expensive piece of memorabilia if it ever turns up in an attic or basement somewhere.. if it ever existed.

 

[dblue8]

Are you arguing that because South Australia weren't involved the competition wasn't national?

So let me get this right... you want to only count things from 1990 onwards because prior to this the competition wasn't national, because as you rightly pointed out, it only became national in 1991 when a South Australian team joined thus meaning all Australian States were represented... except Tasmania...

Why does 1990 count when 1987-1989 don't according to you?

1990 was when the VFL changed name to AFL. So which is the correct answer :
A: The AFL was established to financially secure the long-term interests of the VFL and the use of the name AFL is simply a marketing furphy, or
B: The VFL actually decided that a national competition would be a progressive step but forgot to tell Victorians?

 

[Bluelegs]

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.

Except the begining of the AFL wasn't a begining at all, it was a continuation of the VFL, the transition was a change of name and the addition of new teams. Who cares what the VFA did?

Should port change the year on the back of their jumper to 1996?