Expansion The AFL is not the VFL thread

[telsor]

Here is an example,
We are all talking about the Hawks winning possibly 4 in a row and the media talk about it also, they compare it to Collingwood in the 20's etc etc
But they should clarify that they are only talking about this competition only.
They should say nationally the record is Port Adelaide 6 consecutive flags in the 50's.

Do you know of any sporting competition that compares stats with another comp?

When Cricket Australia talks about the sheffield shield, do they frequently make references to records made in new zealand's equivalent comp? (whatever it's called).

The AFL, as a league, is not a new thing, it has history, and that's the VFL.

They should not report or sell this competitions history as the games history.

Where does it do that?
They sell this competition's history as this competition's history. The premierships date back continually to 1897, the Brownlow dates back to whenever it was created, etc.

They ALSO look at the games history, with things like the hall of fame, and you know what...other comps are recognised!
When Royce Hart was inducted as a legend in the hall of fame, he's listed as 187 games with Richmond, but the one (very dodgy) game he played with Glenelg is also recorded. They also have the likes of Barry Robran (who never played VFL) along with Polly Farmer & Barry Cable (both of whom played most of his careers in WA, and probably wouldn't have reached that status 'just' on their VFL efforts).

If I asked any 20 year old they would tell me Collingwood holds the record because that's what they have been told which is not correct in the games history. You can't blame them as they can only believe what they are told.

And for VFL/AFL history, they'd be right. Or should we teach them that a club in a suburban league won 10 in a row once?

Some will say why do the AFL need to acknowledge the records and history of the WAFL and SANFL and maybe they don't but then never ever speak about the history of the game when they speak of the VFL/AFL as that is really only a third of the history of our game at the highest level.

They do acknowledge those records though...They're not the records of this competition however. If WAFL, or SANFL had grown to be the national comp, their history would be the one used, but they weren't.

While VFL isn't/wasn't 100% of the game at the highest level, the 3 competitions weren't equal either. (not that that really matters)

Then they show us the greatest marks and goals then include those from the WAFL and SANFL from those halcyon days also.

a) Does the AFL own the rights to those images?
b) Should they also show the best marks and goals from the EDFL?

The VFL by morphing into the AFL has pretty much wiped those two great comps out so surely an acknowledgement of what it once was would be fair if you are commenting or reporting on the history of the game.
Like you said being custodian and running this league do not work hand in hand.

The VFL morphing into the AFL wiped out the VFL, the WAFL & SANFL are still there, as they were. The fans rejecting them to move their support to the AFL has done a lot more damage to those competitions.

That's the thing, the history of the VFL/AFL competition (premierships, B&Fs, best marks & goals, stats) is part of running the league.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

If they do it with the HOF then why stop there?
You mention other leagues Telsor but even you know that there was only three first tier leagues so I will take it as you just being funny.
I was not referring to suburban or bush leagues I was talking the VFL/SANFL and WAFL and you know this.
The AFL is the only comp that is broadcast nationally so if they say Collingwood hold the record with 4 premierships in a row the people listening will of course think that is the history of the game.
People will not go and investigate so they should actually state that better achievements have occurred at the highest level in the past.
If you think Collingwood winning 4 in a row in the 20's was the best then that's fine, I think port have easily exceeded that record and that should be the national benchmark.

 

[telsor]

If they do it with the HOF then why stop there?
You mention other leagues Telsor but even you know that there was only three first tier leagues so I will take it as you just being funny.
I was not referring to suburban or bush leagues I was talking the VFL/SANFL and WAFL and you know this.
The AFL is the only comp that is broadcast nationally so if they say Collingwood hold the record with 4 premierships in a row the people listening will of course think that is the history of the game.
People will not go and investigate so they should actually state that better achievements have occurred at the highest level in the past.
If you think Collingwood winning 4 in a row in the 20's was the best then that's fine, I think port have easily exceeded that record and that should be the national benchmark.

I almost deleted the above post in favor of something much simpler...

The AFL grew out of the VFL so historically, thay are the same competition, so when talking about league history, of course they focus on VFL history.


Even if they did include all 3 competitions stats, that would just raise debate about the relative standards...Is Collingwood winning 4 in a row in a tougher competition a bigger achievement than Port winning 6 in a smaller comp?

 

[Arwib]

Do you know of any sporting competition that compares stats with another comp?

When Cricket Australia talks about the sheffield shield, do they frequently make references to records made in new zealand's equivalent comp? (whatever it's called).

The NFL talks about pre-Super Bowl era championships as something important but distinct from Super Bowls. So they say the Chargers or Browns have never won a Super Bowl but also speak of their championship droughts stretching back to the 1960s. This recognises that there used to be different top-level competitions but still maintains the primacy of the current top league. In that case the change was a merger but something can be donated from that.

Cricket of course talks about players' first class records all the time in a way agnostic to specific league.

I think the official record-keeping of the sport of Australian Football, of which the AFL is de facto custodian, should acknowledge, quantify and incorporate the other major competitions' records (VFA/L, WAFL, SANFL) until the point at which the competition was no longer the highest level in their state. This would be a true reflection of the expansion of the VFL.

Like obviously the 1995 Port Adelaide SANFL premiership isn't equivalent to Carlton's but it's harder to argue that case about 1980 or 1950 or 1898 premierships.

So in this view there'd be a list of "major premierships" or "first class premierships" including the VFL/AFL 1897-now as well as records until 1896 for the VFA/L, 1987 for WA, 1991 for SA.

(An alternative cutoff date for WA and SA might be when representative games were replaced with State of Origin in explicit recognition of the VFL's generally greater strength. I think Origin began in the 1970s.)

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I almost deleted the above post in favor of something much simpler...

The AFL grew out of the VFL so historically, thay are the same competition, so when talking about league history, of course they focus on VFL history.


Even if they did include all 3 competitions stats, that would just raise debate about the relative standards...Is Collingwood winning 4 in a row in a tougher competition a bigger achievement than Port winning 6 in a smaller comp?

Debate is good mate, was the VFL a tougher comp in that time than the other two? No idea as I wasn't around.
So what if there is debate, at least they will be debating the truth.
I think up to and including the 70,s the three comps were all very big seriously strong comps.

 

[The_Reaper]

I don't really understand what you're suggesting by your use of the term "facts". The current national competition indeed used to be a competition that existed within the confines of an individual state. At what point that state competition evolved into a national competition by the addition of teams outside the state of Victoria is debatable. 1982, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1995 or 1997 are all candidates. However there doesn't appear to be a point where we can definitively say the state competition became a new National competition. As far as I'm aware the AFL makes no claim to have been any sort of national competition before the 1980s.

1991 is the best year in my opinio

 

[telsor]

The NFL talks about pre-Super Bowl era championships as something important but distinct from Super Bowls. So they say the Chargers or Browns have never won a Super Bowl but also speak of their championship droughts stretching back to the 1960s. This recognises that there used to be different top-level competitions but still maintains the primacy of the current top league. In that case the change was a merger but something can be donated from that.

The super bowl era came about from 2 competitions combining as equals. That's not the case here. There they acknowledge an era 'before', but there is no before here...It's the same competition, and the records don't restart with each change it's had.

Cricket of course talks about players' first class records all the time in a way agnostic to specific league.

Does cricket in one country compare (state/county) team records across leagues as if they were the same thing?
When talking about cricket in Australia, do you tend to hear "Vic won 3 shields in a row, but of course Sussex won 5 county championships in a row 20 years earlier"?

I think the official record-keeping of the sport of Australian Football, of which the AFL is de facto custodian, should acknowledge, quantify and incorporate the other major competitions' records (VFA/L, WAFL, SANFL) until the point at which the competition was no longer the highest level in their state. This would be a true reflection of the expansion of the VFL.

Like obviously the 1995 Port Adelaide SANFL premiership isn't equivalent to Carlton's but it's harder to argue that case about 1980 or 1950 or 1898 premierships.

So in this view there'd be a list of "major premierships" or "first class premierships" including the VFL/AFL 1897-now as well as records until 1896 for the VFA/L, 1987 for WA, 1991 for SA.

(An alternative cutoff date for WA and SA might be when representative games were replaced with State of Origin in explicit recognition of the VFL's generally greater strength. I think Origin began in the 1970s.)

That's part of the problem with that logic....When is the cutoff?

For mine, the biggest single shift was South Melbourne moving to Sydney...A competition was suddenly played in more than one state (and on Sundays!). In comparison, changing the name was one of the smallest shifts.

Does WAFL get relegated to '2nd tier' when WCE came in, but SANFL retain first tier status until Adelaide, even though they had clearly dropped below the 'standard' long before? Let's face it, the difference in standard was clearly happening before WCE came in, after all money and TV was already clearly shifting the VFL out ahead of the rest from the 70s. The fact that they needed SOO was a demonstration of that, with players needing to go back to their 'origin' to make it a vaguely fair fight because so many of the best players had left to play in the (singular) top league.

 

[telsor]

Debate is good mate, was the VFL a tougher comp in that time than the other two? No idea as I wasn't around.
So what if there is debate, at least they will be debating the truth.
I think up to and including the 70,s the three comps were all very big seriously strong comps.

Nobody is stopping people debating it now.

That doesn't change the fact that the AFLs history as a league is the VFL.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Nobody is stopping people debating it now.

That doesn't change the fact that the AFLs history as a league is the VFL.

Don't think I ever said it wasn't!!

 

[Garlic muncher]

Debate is good mate, was the VFL a tougher comp in that time than the other two? No idea as I wasn't around.
So what if there is debate, at least they will be debating the truth.
I think up to and including the 70,s the three comps were all very big seriously strong comps.

I think you will find there was a much bigger pool and exchange of players from West heading to Victoria and viccy verca over time than from SA, initially though if we go back to the late 1890's early 1900's there was a huge pool of players that left Victoria for WA.

Kalgoorlie at one stage boasted players that could probably defeat a VFL team 1910-20's, i can just remember the Richardson bros( Max and Wayne from Swan districts) to Collingwood, Gabelich before him ( don't remember him ) Stan Magro etc etc, and of course all the great West Aussies to North Melbourne, Glendinning, Krakours, Cable etc

If i remember correctly the South Aussies came in big numbers to Vic in early 80's ( kernahan, Motley, Bradley and players like Russell, Tony Francis (Collingwood) a little later which possibly twisted SA's hand to a team in the national comp.

Collingwood recruited from Kalgoorlie (charlie tyson ) in the 1920's, and also Kalgoorlie ( ted Rowell ) 1900 who played in some premierships and was actually captain coach for a couple of years, i don't think there was anything like that in the early days of football from South Oz, although i stand corrected.

BTW there was also a Kalgoorlie hotel in Collingwood which was renamed that in about 1912, but demolished in 2009 - anyway just jibbering on now.

 

[telsor]

Don't think I ever said it wasn't!!

Then doesn't it naturally follow that when talking about the league's history, they talk about the VFL (as opposed to WAFL/SANFL)?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Then doesn't it naturally follow that when talking about the league's history, they talk about the VFL (as opposed to WAFL/SANFL)?

Yes of course but don't sell it has the history of the sport, just of that particular league. The VFL dies not hold all the football records. The public should be informed of this.

 

[Arwib]

The super bowl era came about from 2 competitions combining as equals. That's not the case here. There they acknowledge an era 'before', but there is no before here...It's the same competition, and the records don't restart with each change it's had.



Does cricket in one country compare (state/county) team records across leagues as if they were the same thing?
When talking about cricket in Australia, do you tend to hear "Vic won 3 shields in a row, but of course Sussex won 5 county championships in a row 20 years earlier"?



That's part of the problem with that logic....When is the cutoff?

For mine, the biggest single shift was South Melbourne moving to Sydney...A competition was suddenly played in more than one state (and on Sundays!). In comparison, changing the name was one of the smallest shifts.

Does WAFL get relegated to '2nd tier' when WCE came in, but SANFL retain first tier status until Adelaide, even though they had clearly dropped below the 'standard' long before? Let's face it, the difference in standard was clearly happening before WCE came in, after all money and TV was already clearly shifting the VFL out ahead of the rest from the 70s. The fact that they needed SOO was a demonstration of that, with players needing to go back to their 'origin' to make it a vaguely fair fight because so many of the best players had left to play in the (singular) top league.

That there is difficulty of specifying a cutoff of course indicates that there *is* a clear era that should be recognised as part of the history and record keeping of top level Australian Rules Football.

1982 is also a viable option. I think the best two are either the three specific VFA/WAFL/SANFL dates I mentioned or the date of the first Origin matches in the 1970s, but that's probably a matter for actual historians.

 

[telsor]

That there is difficulty of specifying a cutoff of course indicates that there *is* a clear era that should be recognised as part of the history and record keeping of top level Australian Rules Football.

Actually that there is no clear cutoff demonstrates that it's the same competition, which evolved over time.

1982 is also a viable option. I think the best two are either the three specific VFA/WAFL/SANFL dates I mentioned or the date of the first Origin matches in the 1970s, but that's probably a matter for actual historians.

So instead of having one set of records, we'll have The VFL (pre-cutoff), The VFL (post cutoff) and of course The AFL.

All of which are the same comp, and separated by relatively minor steps.

Why? Because a very small number of people will never feel that the AFL gives 'their' competition's history enough respect.

Tell me, do the WAFL or SANFL have 2 sets of records and consider themselves to have started anew for 'when we were a 1st tier comp' and 'since we've been relegated to 2nd tier'? If they don't do that, then why on earth should the VFL/AFL break itself up into 'The leading 1st tier comp' and 'The only 1st tier comp'?

 

[Arwib]

It's a more accurate way to present the history of top level football in this country than the current approach and would better separate the two hitherto blurred aspects of the AFL's role as administrator of the current elite competition and as de facto custodian of the sport as a whole.

 

[madmug]

I think you will find there was a much bigger pool and exchange of players from West heading to Victoria and viccy verca over time than from SA, initially though if we go back to the late 1890's early 1900's there was a huge pool of players that left Victoria for WA.

Kalgoorlie at one stage boasted players that could probably defeat a VFL team 1910-20's, i can just remember the Richardson bros( Max and Wayne from Swan districts) to Collingwood, Gabelich before him ( don't remember him ) Stan Magro etc etc, and of course all the great West Aussies to North Melbourne, Glendinning, Krakours, Cable etc

If i remember correctly the South Aussies came in big numbers to Vic in early 80's ( kernahan, Motley, Bradley and players like Russell, Tony Francis (Collingwood) a little later which possibly twisted SA's hand to a team in the national comp.

Collingwood recruited from Kalgoorlie (charlie tyson ) in the 1920's, and also Kalgoorlie ( ted Rowell ) 1900 who played in some premierships and was actually captain coach for a couple of years, i don't think there was anything like that in the early days of football from South Oz, although i stand corrected.

BTW there was also a Kalgoorlie hotel in Collingwood which was renamed that in about 1912, but demolished in 2009 - anyway just jibbering on now.

Its not dribble mate. Its part of the amazing history of what use to be the people's game.

I guess l'd like the AFL to show more care about the game as a whole. Do they ever look to display the richness of the game outside of their own ego driven view of the world? Their respect of the rich VFA history was to kill it. They very much ignore the SANFL & WAFL in the same way. The AFL would like to kill them off too. Maybe AFLSA & AFLWA. Thats the future for them too, at this rate. You either care about the real history of the game, or you're blinded by the AFL machine. That machine suits those who benefit from it & fk the rest. I dont see that as healthy.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The NFL talks about pre-Super Bowl era championships as something important but distinct from Super Bowls. So they say the Chargers or Browns have never won a Super Bowl but also speak of their championship droughts stretching back to the 1960s. This recognises that there used to be different top-level competitions but still maintains the primacy of the current top league. In that case the change was a merger but something can be donated from that.

As you say, conpletely different situation due to two leagues merging and having different championships prior to the Superbowl era. The VFL/AFL has always had a premier dating back to 1897.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Its not dribble mate. Its part of the amazing history of what use to be the people's game.

I guess l'd like the AFL to show more care about the game as a whole. Do they ever look to display the richness of the game outside of their own ego driven view of the world? Their respect of the rich VFA history was to kill it. They very much ignore the SANFL & WAFL in the same way. The AFL would like to kill them off too. Maybe AFLSA & AFLWA. Thats the future for them too, at this rate. You either care about the real history of the game, or you're blinded by the AFL machine. That machine suits those who benefit from it & fk the rest. I dont see that as healthy.

There are parts of the AFL machine i admire and abhor at pretty much the same time, ruthlessness springs to mind and we all know that victors write the history.

Does the AFL still have a soul ?, i think it does, because if it didn't the people would not come, or is it because the game is actually very good, i think the VFL/AFL did what it did to survive and thrive, it's a big game but at the same time in context it is a small game and a bunch of mistakes would see it slip down the totem pole, there is plenty of competition.

A museum tracing the history of the game across Australia would be great, but tell me, where would you locate it ? and therefore what would it mainly consist of ?.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There are parts of the AFL machine i admire and abhor at pretty much the same time, ruthlessness springs to mind and we all know that victors write the history.

Does the AFL still have a soul ?, i think it does, because if it didn't the people would not come, or is it because the game is actually very good, i think the VFL/AFL did what it did to survive and thrive, it's a big game but at the same time in context it is a small game and a bunch of mistakes would see it slip down the totem pole, there is plenty of competition.

A museum tracing the history of the game across Australia would be great, but tell me, where would you locate it ? and therefore what would it mainly consist of ?.

If the AFL did the museum it would consist of only VFL/AFL info.
The museum would make sense to be in Melbourne probably at the MCG.
To do it properly you need to have the existing AFL have no part in it what so ever.
You get the Leaders of the state leagues in the 70,s and a football historian to put it together.
Any person involved from the last 25 years will not be the right person. Bring them in at the end to do the AFL era.

 

[telsor]

It's a more accurate way to present the history of top level football in this country than the current approach and would better separate the two hitherto blurred aspects of the AFL's role as administrator of the current elite competition and as de facto custodian of the sport as a whole.

So because the AFL is 'custodian of the game', they can't promote the history of the league they continue to operate?

Pretending the WAFL & SANFL were somehow equal is a polite nicety. For most of the history of the game, WA's population would have meant it was closer to Tas in terms of their talent pool than they would have been to Vic.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

So because the AFL is 'custodian of the game', they can't promote the history of the league they continue to operate?

Pretending the WAFL & SANFL were somehow equal is a polite nicety. For most of the history of the game, WA's population would have meant it was closer to Tas in terms of their talent pool than they would have been to Vic.

Simple question then, why did all the people in WA and SA follow their competition and not the VFL then? Since it has become national and is clearly the only first tier league they have all jumped on board and followed it.
If the VFL as you say was the only first tier league then why we're so many people watching these 2nd tier leagues?
I was born late 60,s and never heard of the VFL until late 70,s and our family were footy nuts. I will say however that my dad always said the VFL was the strongest of the 3 big leagues.
Equal? Probably not.
Top tier football? Absolute certainty.

 

[madmug]

Simple question then, why did all the people in WA and SA follow their competition and not the VFL then? Since it has become national and is clearly the only first tier league they have all jumped on board and followed it.
If the VFL as you say was the only first tier league then why we're so many people watching these 2nd tier leagues?
I was born late 60,s and never heard of the VFL until late 70,s and our family were footy nuts. I will say however that my dad always said the VFL was the strongest of the 3 big leagues.
Equal? Probably not.
Top tier football? Absolute certainty.

You should remember that when they had the various interstate & interclub competitions, the best clubs from SA & WA did quite well. A national comp made up of the best of the VFL, WA & SA would have worked well. It obviously just didnt suit the VFL who wanted the worst of their clubs to be part of a national competition & not the best of the WA & SA clubs. I guess you can see why.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You should remember that when they had the various interstate & interclub competitions, the best clubs from SA & WA did quite well. A national comp made up of the best of the VFL, WA & SA would have worked well. It obviously just didnt suit the VFL who wanted the worst of their clubs to be part of a national competition & not the best of the WA & SA clubs. I guess you can see why.

That is not entirely true mate, the WAFL at the time made it very clear they would not let one of their clubs be part of an expanded VFL. A few clubs looked at it though.
WA by racing to join the VFL are at very large fault with what we ended up with, they did not think long term about the impact on their clubs and instead of holding out and joining forces with SA to look after their clubs they jumped into bed with the VFL and the rest is history.
I have always been very angry with the people running football in WA in the mid 80's.

 

[telsor]

Simple question then, why did all the people in WA and SA follow their competition and not the VFL then? Since it has become national and is clearly the only first tier league they have all jumped on board and followed it.

Until the 70s, a lot came down to the media. How much coverage would the VFL have gotten in WA during the 50s? You would probably only catch the odd bit in a newspaper and *perhaps* a bit of radio coverage, it's not going to get a lot of support that way, and only the few ex-Vics would have cared. Once TV (especially) started showing things from other states, the walls started to come down, albeit slowed down a bit by habit and parocialism.

That it was the highest standard the locals experienced doesn't make it the highest standard in absolute terms though.

If the VFL as you say was the only first tier league then why we're so many people watching these 2nd tier leagues?

Primarily, a lack of options.

I was born late 60,s and never heard of the VFL until late 70,s and our family were footy nuts. I will say however that my dad always said the VFL was the strongest of the 3 big leagues.
Equal? Probably not.
Top tier football? Absolute certainty.

Pretty much covers my point...You followed the local comp because it was the highest grade you were aware of. As awareness grew (due in no small part to the media becoming more national), then the drift to support of the VFL started growing.

Remember that in the early/mid 80's, there were WA teams asking to join the VFL. While I won't claim to know what was in their minds, I imagine it was a combination of wanting to move to the higher grade and seeing the writing on the wall.

 

[telsor]

That is not entirely true mate, the WAFL at the time made it very clear they would not let one of their clubs be part of an expanded VFL. A few clubs looked at it though.
WA by racing to join the VFL are at very large fault with what we ended up with, they did not think long term about the impact on their clubs and instead of holding out and joining forces with SA to look after their clubs they jumped into bed with the VFL and the rest is history.
I have always been very angry with the people running football in WA in the mid 80's.

In an ideal world, you're right, it would have been a better comp if something like that had happened (in the short term anyway, I have doubts about how they'd handle any future expansion and the state leagues wanting influence/control/money) but the fact is the VFL held all the aces due to the relative sizes of the markets.

The VFL could 'go national' by themselves, with or without the WAFL/SANFL (without being definately tougher), but no concept of a national comp could happen without the VFL (or at least, without it's bigger clubs), so when the VFL clubs stuck together and decided on their course of action, there was little the WAFL/SANFL could do.