Rant RE: VFL/AFL

[Slattery_20]

The AFL is a much bigger, fatter, caterpillar now.
There was no cocoon, and it's still clearly recognisable even though it's bigger & broader.
It's the same animal, the same form.

 

[Ron The Bear]

If you'd all prefer, I'll happily edit my previous posts so that I refer to it as the "Australian Football Hall of Fame, run by the AFL, whose logo appears on its logo, and on whose website, AFL.com.au, its official website exists, on which it is refered to as the AFL Hall of Fame in multiple instances, including in press releases and on the freaking front page of the website."

Like other things the AFL's grubby fingerprints are all over it, but it was their initiative, they presumably pay for it so naturally they want to get some mileage from it. They're not going to cede ownership of it to an independent body because Demetriou's a megalomaniac. Would you prefer if it entry was based entirely on performances in the VFL/AFL?

 

[Dandy_GO]

And very few people, if anyone will disagree with that. Having a completely separate administrator for the actual sport of Australian Football would be fantastic, the rules wouldn't change every 15 minutes to try and make it a better spectacle and increase revenue amongst other things.

However, none of that would change the fact that the VFL/AFL is one competition, formed in 1897 when the break away league was created, that has had new teams added from time to time to feed some cash in. Either directly through the 'footy state' franchises, or indirectly (over time) through the expansion franchises.

I think you've misunderstood my argument, because I agree with most of that. The AFL/VFL distinction is important to us for that very reason. What you have proposed hasn't happened. They are now the caretakers of the sport nationally. I use the name change as a symbolic point for that shift, but, realistically, there isn't any set moment. What is certain though, is that they brand themselves that way, they pressure the state leagues to fall into line, and they are the caretakers of the history of the sport. In some ways, they have done a good job of this - with expanding the game into Qld/NSW etc. In others, such as preservation and celebration of the history of the game nationally, they have not.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Like other things the AFL's grubby fingerprints are all over it, but it was their initiative, they presumably pay for it so naturally they want to get some mileage from it. They're not going to cede ownership of it to an independent body because Demetriou's a megalomaniac. Would you prefer if it entry was based entirely on performances in the VFL/AFL?

I'm not sure. Part of the me almost would. I wouldn't be satisfied, but I'm not satisfied now. Currently, it reeks of tokenism. At least if it was entirely based on VFL/AFL, it would be seem more honest.
Neither, of course, would be my preferred option.

 

[Slattery_20]

So the current set up 'reeks of tokenism'; but having the exact same thing in exact same format, but with the AFL logo dropped off would be fine?

 

[Dandy_GO]

So the current set up 'reeks of tokenism'; but having the exact same thing in exact same format, but with the AFL logo dropped off would be fine?

No. Not my point at all.

 

[Slattery_20]

No. Not my point at all.

Humour me, then.

In some way, shape or form, any future hall of fame will be an evolution of the current one - they're not going to turf everyone out and start again.

So won't you be saying exactly the same things about it, anyway? Since it seems you can't accept a natural evolution, and feel everything has to have a finite, discrete start point - which you've chosen, arbitrarily, to be the brand change in 1990?

 

[Dandy_GO]

Humour me, then.

In some way, shape or form, any future hall of fame will be an evolution of the current one - they're not going to turf everyone out and start again.

So won't you be saying exactly the same things about it, anyway? Since it seems you can't accept a natural evolution, and feel everything has to have a finite, discrete start point - which you've chosen, arbitrarily, to be the brand change in 1990?

Read my other posts.
The hall of fame supposedly exists as a national institution (the fact that it's called the Australian Football Hall of Fame actually supports my argument) for preserving the sport, not the league. I used Barrie Robran's inclusion as an example of this. Currently, though, VFL players are completely overrepresented compared to those from other leagues. Even when non-AFL/VFL footballers are included, their role in the history of the game is downplayed. Robran, again, was a good example, listed as "the best player never to play AFL." Ken Farmer's treatment is another good example. There are many more.
For it to be the Australian Hall of Fame, run by the Australian Football League, it should be doing more to acknowledge the national history of the game, rather than the tokenism that currently exists.
Note that the Australian Football Hall of Fame was started in 1996.

 

[TigerCraig]

You make a good point. The HoF's own charter says:

The Australian Football Hall of Fame seeks to recognise and enshrine players, coaches, umpires, administrators and media representatives who have made significant contributions to Australian Football - at any level - since the game's inception in 1858.
So, if someone made a great contribution to the South Oodnadatta Football League they should be as open to inclusion as Leigh Matthews (for exanmple)

 

[Slattery_20]

Read my other posts.
The hall of fame supposedly exists as a national institution (the fact that it's called the Australian Football Hall of Fame actually supports my argument) for preserving the sport, not the league. I used Barrie Robran's inclusion as an example of this. Currently, though, VFL players are completely overrepresented compared to those from other leagues. Even when non-AFL/VFL footballers are included, their role in the history of the game is downplayed. Robran, again, was a good example, listed as "the best player never to play AFL." Ken Farmer's treatment is another good example. There are many more.
For it to be the Australian Hall of Fame, run by the Australian Football League, it should be doing more to acknowledge the national history of the game, rather than the tokenism that currently exists.
Note that the Australian Football Hall of Fame was started in 1996.

I agree that it needs to get better, but hasn't it improved a fair bit on that front in recent years?

 

[kavorka]

Regarding the comments by the OP, referring to matches between the VFL and WAFL and SANFL premiers as indicators of league standards....you got to be joking right? It is a well known fact the Vic teams were in holiday mode and couldn't give a rats whether they won or lost those games. Can you imagine the Swans flying to Perth now to play Claremont the next week? Do you think many players would care

With regards to the historical records....the bottom line is that the AFL was not a 'break away' league. If teams had broken away from the VFL and joined the AFL, then fair enough, records should start from 1990....but the AFL is an extension of the VFL, and rightly so, records should be kept from 1897

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Regarding the comments by the OP, referring to matches between the VFL and WAFL and SANFL premiers as indicators of league standards....you got to be joking right?

Rugby league has an annual match between the NRL premiers and the English premiers and it's also not exactly the pinnacle of the season(s) either.

 

[Blackas87]

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.

The first ever 100m sprint gold medal at the olympics in 1896 was ran in 12.0 seconds, do we just not count that now as an Olympic gold medal as athletics back then wasn't the standard it is today?

 

[Monkey King]

I will put it more simply for you. To borrow a metaphor that an earlier Victorian poster used - A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. Same individual creature, but a butterfly is NOT a caterpillar. A change has occurred.

But it's the same creature isn't it. I'll use an analogy for you, just because my sister marries, changes her surname, moves interstate and has three kids, doesn't mean she's a different person.

 

[dagriggstar]

In time, the distinction will probably be made. If nothing else, it will be because the majority of people will not have been around in the VFL era, if you like.

Besides, what records would change if you counted the three major state competitions ? Besides the obvious "Port Adelaide has a million premierships".

 

[Monkey King]

I think you'll find if you read my other post, just a couple of posts above that one you quoted, I disagree with the OPs idea. I agree fully that VFL records should be acknowledged. Carlton is still the same Carlton that it was before.
However, to say that the AFL is the same is it was, completely ignores that it is promoting itself as THE national competition.

The National/State stuff is just an internal distinction you make based on the fact you didn't experience the continuity from a supporters perspective. I never said the AFL is the same as it was, just that it's the same league. The league 50 years ago wasn't the same as it was 50 years before that, but it was still the same league. The league in 50 years from now probably isn't going to be the same as it is now, but it's still going to be the same league. All those along the way who amplify the meaning of their generation are just going to have to deal with this unchanging fact.

My argument isn't that we should stop acknowledging VFL flags (though I think we should make more of an effort to specify what was in the VFL era, over the AFL era) but stop downplaying other leagues which existed in parallell with the VFL for over a century prior to there being a national league at all.

I don't see why the AFL should recognise any other league. But I do agree, the AFL should not represent the Australian game. And the AFL HOF should be for players who played in this league, not some other league. The Australian Football HOF should have nothing to do with the AFL beyond the league being able to nominate players for inclusion. I also think the AFL should be stripped of the rights to mess with rules of the game; a responsibility it has proven ill-equipped to manage.

If you can't acknowledge that a shift rhetoric between VICTORIAN football league to AUSTRALIAN football league signals a significant point of difference, then this argument isn't going to go anywhere.

Difference in what? What is the practical implication of this difference?

 

[Dirty Bird]

In time, the distinction will probably be made. If nothing else, it will be because the majority of people will not have been around in the VFL era, if you like.

Besides, what records would change if you counted the three major state competitions ? Besides the obvious "Port Adelaide has a million premierships".

Ken Farmer - 1419 goals for one. (replacing Lockett's 1360)
Ken Farmer - 23 goals in one game for two. (replacing Fanning's 18)
Ken Farmer - 6.33 goals per game for three. (replacing Coleman's 5.48)

He played 224 games, 223 he got a goal in, the 1 he didn't he was stretchered off in the opening minutes.

 

[Monkey King]

The first ever 100m sprint gold medal at the olympics in 1896 was ran in 12.0 seconds, do we just not count that now as an Olympic gold medal as athletics back then wasn't the standard it is today?

And with a far smaller portion of competitors representing a smaller contingent of countries in a much smaller pool of events. But of course, an Olympic medal is an Olympic medal. It is the same continuous competition. You don't find newly participating countries dismissing the achievements of others prior to their joining in.

 

[Monkey King]

Ken Farmer - 1419 goals for one. (replacing Lockett's 1360)
Ken Farmer - 23 goals in one game for two. (replacing Fanning's 18)
Ken Farmer - 6.33 goals per game for three. (replacing Coleman's 5.48)

He played 224 games, 223 he got a goal in, the 1 he didn't he was stretchered off in the opening minutes.

I'd have no problem with these records being recognised in an Australian Football body. Same with Port's premiership record. But it has no place being included in the records of this league.

 

[Monkey King]

Regarding the comments by the OP, referring to matches between the VFL and WAFL and SANFL premiers as indicators of league standards....you got to be joking right? It is a well known fact the Vic teams were in holiday mode and couldn't give a rats whether they won or lost those games. Can you imagine the Swans flying to Perth now to play Claremont the next week? Do you think many players would care

These were total piss-ups so some stories go. Guys played with hangovers.

 

[BFVirgin]

Suggest the WAFL or SANFL etc do a name change to become the World Australian Rules Footy League (WARFL).
If the SANFL do it, Norwood will have the most prestigeous history (c'mon, how can Port have two teams with the same history?)

Does everyone agree that the Poort Adelaide FC have won the most premierships out of all the teams in the AFL?

 

[Dirty Bird]

Does everyone agree that the Poort Adelaide FC have won the most premierships out of all the teams in the AFL?

But they have won the most premierships out of all the teams in the AFL. (but will they please shutup about 98-99 that was won by the PAMFC )
They have also won the most 2nd tier titles in the AFL beating Carlton's 15 and Essendon and Collingwood's 14.

 

[Son of Skeletor]

They have also won the most 2nd tier titles in the AFL beating Carlton's 15 and Essendon and Collingwood's 14.

Wrong.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Wrong.

There is only one way I am wrong and even then it's up for debate.
Should it be Collingwood's 14, Carlton's 13 and Essendon's 12?

 

[BFVirgin]

Geez, I'm glad the Swans can't be labelled as a franchise, unlike all those nasty non-Victorian clubs (except Poort and half of the Lions).