Expansion The AFL is not the VFL thread

[Demonic Ascent]

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

The problem isn't that the AFL promote the history of the league they continue to operate, it's that they don't promote the history of the sport they are custodian of enough. In that aspect I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm currently reading the book "Time & Space" by James Coventry and the early chapters deal with Jack Reedman who played for a few of the SA clubs. This kind of history needs to be incorporated into the history of the game as well as the history of the clubs who started up and played in WA & SA (and other states/VFA too). There's no reason the AFL couldn't do this but whenever they are given the opportunity (other than in the Hall of Fame) they neglect it. I would love to see a doco on the history of the game as a whole, or one on each league (the AFL already did one for the Centenary that focused solely on the VFL/AFL competition, even neglecting pre-VFL era).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

This is the crux of it - the VFL couldn't have expanded as quickly/efficiently as it did without willing partners in WA & SA. Without the WAFC buying the license for a team, with Port Adelaide and other SA clubs agitating to join the VFL, without local supporters abandoning the WAFL/SANFL in favour of the VFL/AFL it wouldn't have succeeded or at least not to the extent it did.

 

[The_Wookie]

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.

Actually thats never made clear in any of the reading ive done on that matter. They didnt want to lose a club, but i dont think they could stop it - and there was no shortage of applicants after 1980, and they could not afford a legal battle to prevent it (given the WAFL had to be bailed out in 1984).

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.

The problem is they saw VFL expansion as inevitable, they were going to lose a club or the VFL would relocate or set up a new one. The SANFL were prepared to set their own terms, but even then they caved or lost a club - they could stall it, but they could not have prevented it in the end.

The VFL werent interested in any non VFL operated national league, and without the VFL and its clubs, there was almost no chance of success. So the WAFL caved.

I have always been very angry with the people running football in WA in the mid 80's.

They wanted to retain talent and prevent a VFL invasion when it inevitably expanded west. Not having West Coast would almost certainly have seen a license sold to a private enterprise in Perth anyway.

 

[telsor]

The problem isn't that the AFL promote the history of the league they continue to operate, it's that they don't promote the history of the sport they are custodian of enough. In that aspect I agree wholeheartedly.

That they think the 1990 (AFL) premiership came after the 1989 (VFL) premiership doesn't prevent that.

I'm currently reading the book "Time & Space" by James Coventry and the early chapters deal with Jack Reedman who played for a few of the SA clubs. This kind of history needs to be incorporated into the history of the game as well as the history of the clubs who started up and played in WA & SA (and other states/VFA too). There's no reason the AFL couldn't do this but whenever they are given the opportunity (other than in the Hall of Fame) they neglect it. I would love to see a doco on the history of the game as a whole, or one on each league (the AFL already did one for the Centenary that focused solely on the VFL/AFL competition, even neglecting pre-VFL era).

Of course it focused on the VFL/AFL competition because it was on the centenary of the VFL/AFL competition!

When you have a birthday, do they sing happy birthday to someone else?


I just looked up Jack Reedman...It mentions that he was made back pocket in SAs 'greatest team'....Tell me, did the SANFL include anyone from other competitions? Or is that just a requirement for the VFL/AFL whenever history of the competition is discussed?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That they think the 1990 (AFL) premiership came after the 1989 (VFL) premiership doesn't prevent that.

Agreed. But I think it's fair to say the AFL as custodian of the game doesn't do their job of promoting the history of the sport as a whole nearly enough.

Of course it focused on the VFL/AFL competition because it was on the centenary of the VFL/AFL competition!

When you have a birthday, do they sing happy birthday to someone else?

Of course, I'm not saying they shouldn't have - I'm just saying it would be nice to see a doco like that on the history of the sport as a whole. The way that doco was done was as if the history of the VFL was the history of the sport, whether intentionally or not. I can understand why people particularly from SA & WA might feel annoyed/aggrieved that the history of the sport largely neglects it's history in their states, but as the AFL clearly won't be the ones to consolidate that history it will probably be left to historians from those states to do so themselves.

I just looked up Jack Reedman...It mentions that he was made back pocket in SAs 'greatest team'....Tell me, did the SANFL include anyone from other competitions? Or is that just a requirement for the VFL/AFL whenever history of the competition is discussed?

I have no idea. I was merely pointing out there are stories to be told from SA & WA in particular that are largely neglected. The book I'm reading talks about his role as a coach and his role in developing the game in its early days (which is what I was mainly referring to) in addition to his time as a player and test cricketer. He was a peer of Jack Worrall the famous Carlton and Essendon coach and together they were key figures in the early stages of Australian Football particularly in regards to developing strategies and the way the game was played.

 

[North park]

The problem isn't that the AFL promote the history of the league they continue to operate, it's that they don't promote the history of the sport they are custodian of enough. In that aspect I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm currently reading the book "Time & Space" by James Coventry and the early chapters deal with Jack Reedman who played for a few of the SA clubs. This kind of history needs to be incorporated into the history of the game as well as the history of the clubs who started up and played in WA & SA (and other states/VFA too). There's no reason the AFL couldn't do this but whenever they are given the opportunity (other than in the Hall of Fame) they neglect it. I would love to see a doco on the history of the game as a whole, or one on each league (the AFL already did one for the Centenary that focused solely on the VFL/AFL competition, even neglecting pre-VFL era).

I read the book "Time & Space" earlier this year - it contains some very interesting information about the history of SA and WA football which I wasn't aware of.

As you state, the AFL has the opportunity to tell the history of Australian football (or Australian Rules football) through all the leagues where it developed and grew but often sticks to the VFL/AFL history only. I agree a doco on the history of the game, or one with episodes on each league, would be great to see.

BTW, I find Big Footy is a great source of information about football in SA and WA - both the history and current events. Growing up as a Victorian, the other state leagues never got much coverage here, but there is a lot of history involved.

The book mentions Victorian teams travelling to SA, WA and Tasmania in the 1920s and 1930s for mid-season "breaks" and playing 2 or 3 games against the local teams, as well as the large number of players moving from one state to another for work and football opportunities. It makes you realise that football in each state didn't develop in isolation but there has always been a lot of "cross-polinisation".

 

[telsor]

Agreed. But I think it's fair to say the AFL as custodian of the game doesn't do their job of promoting the history of the sport as a whole nearly enough.

I completely agree that they wear two hats, and don't wear them well, but a lot of this thread seems to revolve around the idea that possessing the 'custodian' hat means that they can't allow the 'league' hat to discuss it's history.

The MAJORITY of history put out there isn't even by the AFL (whatever hat), it's the broadcasters feeding the masses what the want, which usually relates to what they're showing at the time and that doesn't tend to be 'hey, we're showing Sydney V Adelaide, so lets include a bit on Norwood in the 30s'.

Of the (little) history the AFL actually puts out, I'd say the balance is a lot closer (maybe not 'right', but closer), but really, the only bits that get attention are (once again) those that relate to what's happening at the time, so when doing the Brownlow, they focus on past Brownlows, which obviously have a high VFL focus, same with premierships (The AFL could publish a list of other leagues premierships alongside every thing they put out as part of the lead up to their own, and it would be almost completely ignored).

 

[telsor]

Thinking about sources of AFL history...

How much doe the AFL itself actually put out there (in any hat)?

I'd say it's almost all from the media and the clubs who put it out there and push it, and given that, it's almost inevitable that the VFL history dominates.

If the AFL never referred to anything that happened in the VFL/AFL before <insert preferred cutoff date here> ever again, then I dare say there would still be a massively VFL focussed view of the 'history of the game' put out there.

 

[The Swert]

Do you think the Brits have the same arguments?

They have a similar complex history.

Unification of England - ~973AD
Norman Invasion - 1066AD
Royal union of England & Scotland - 1606 AD
Renaming as Great Britain - 1707 AD
Union of Great Britain and Ireland as United Kingdom - 1801 AD

When did the UK begin?
The royalty follow a continuous succession but they have accepted new realms and renamed their nation twice.

Does the history of England/GB/UK go back 200 years? 1000 years or more?

 

[The_Wookie]

Of course it focused on the VFL/AFL competition because it was on the centenary of the VFL/AFL competition!

It specifically says on the cover that its the complete story of the AFL.

 

[The_Wookie]

I completely agree that they wear two hats, and don't wear them well, but a lot of this thread seems to revolve around the idea that possessing the 'custodian' hat means that they can't allow the 'league' hat to discuss it's history.

The MAJORITY of history put out there isn't even by the AFL (whatever hat), it's the broadcasters feeding the masses what the want, which usually relates to what they're showing at the time and that doesn't tend to be 'hey, we're showing Sydney V Adelaide, so lets include a bit on Norwood in the 30s'.

Of the (little) history the AFL actually puts out, I'd say the balance is a lot closer (maybe not 'right', but closer), but really, the only bits that get attention are (once again) those that relate to what's happening at the time, so when doing the Brownlow, they focus on past Brownlows, which obviously have a high VFL focus, same with premierships (The AFL could publish a list of other leagues premierships alongside every thing they put out as part of the lead up to their own, and it would be almost completely ignored).

Other than the centenary book, in 2006 the AFL officially produced a very fine book called "The Australian Game of Football - since 1858" which does tell of the origin stories in each state as well as detailing significant events and star players, leading goalkickers and medal winners from leagues outside of the VFL. It borrows from Blainey, Barker and Whimpress amongst others.

 

[telsor]

It specifically says on the cover that its the complete story of the AFL.

That the different hats have the same name definitely adds to the confusion.

At the bottom though it says 'every AFL season reported', so in context it's about the league, not the game as a whole, but it certainly could be misconstrued.

 

[telsor]

Other than the centenary book, in 2006 the AFL officially produced a very fine book called "The Australian Game of Football - since 1858" which does tell of the origin stories in each state as well as detailing significant events and star players, leading goalkickers and medal winners from leagues outside of the VFL. It borrows from Blainey, Barker and Whimpress amongst others.

So really, both 'hats' have put out 1 book each.

Sound about right to me.

 

[madmug]

Regards the games history, l spoke with a guy who played for Tas v WA in 1999. They played in Kalgoorlie. He had some souvenirs which included a book about the history of the Goldfields league. It was amazing. Thats the sort of stuff that needs highlighting on occassion, to celebrate the 'Australian' in the AFL.
Anyway. Its the conflicted & self interests of the AFL which is the major problem regards the structure, management & custodial roles applicable to that organisation. Too many hats on one self interested head.

 

[telsor]

Regards the games history, l spoke with a guy who played for Tas v WA in 1999. They played in Kalgoorlie. He had some souvenirs which included a book about the history of the Goldfields league. It was amazing. Thats the sort of stuff that needs highlighting on occassion, to celebrate the 'Australian' in the AFL.

Just what do you want the AFL to do to highlight things like that?

 

[madmug]

Just what do you want the AFL to do to highlight things like that?

They are the custodians of the game. Let them show it.

They make no effort to highlight anything other than their own abridged version of their world.

Do they have anything on their website of any substance? Would any casual observer realise that for 80 years of the history described as the AFL, it was a state based competition?

I mean their is truth, honesty, dishonesty & brainwashing. Of that, what applies to the AFL. 2 words l can pick out of that.

 

[telsor]

They are the custodians of the game. Let them show it.

They make no effort to highlight anything other than their own abridged version of their world.

Do they have anything on their website of any substance? Would any casual observer realise that for 80 years of the history described as the AFL, it was a state based competition?

I mean their is truth, honesty, dishonesty & brainwashing. Of that, what applies to the AFL. 2 words l can pick out of that.

Yeah, but what do you think they should they actually DO?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It specifically says on the cover that its the complete story of the AFL.

That's the fine print, the name of the book clearly states in bold on the football 100 years of Australian football

 

[The_Wookie]

That's the fine print, the name of the book clearly states in bold on the football 100 years of Australian football

its not that fine a print on the book. Its a big book and its clearly noticeable. You can borrow my copy if you like.

 

[telsor]

That's the fine print, the name of the book clearly states in bold on the football 100 years of Australian football

Do you think many people bought it not knowing it was about the centenary of the VFL/AFL?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yeah, but what do you think they should they actually DO?

It's a hard thing to ask for as what are they selling? Are they selling the history of the sport or the history of the League and they are different beasts.
Obviously I think that are Telling us the history of the VFL/AFL but they are selling it as the history if the sport.

Why is Craig Bradley not recognised as playing 473 games of League football? Does his 98 games in the SANFL mean nothing?
Why can't they recognise the change from state football to national football?
Why can't they say in this comp Essendon and Carlton have won 16 premierships but of course the Australian record is held by Port Adelaide with X amount of premierships. Does that sentence hurt them?
We have it here even in little WA now where they say the record crowd for a game is 43000 yet WAFL crowds recorded 53000 but why is it they won't say that? Are they told to not say these things?
We don't get why they report things this way?
Like you said if they are only talking about this league that's fine, but define that you are and that they are not the Australian a Football records just this leagues records.
I get that it is hard to do that now and accept it is what it is but they seriously do sell it as the sports history not the games history.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Do you think many people bought it not knowing it was about the centenary of the VFL/AFL?

I can't answer that mate, reading the title it is clear it is the history of Australian a Football.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

its not that fine a print on the book. Its a big book and its clearly noticeable. You can borrow my copy if you like.

All good mate we get enough of that dribble every AFL game day.

 

[telsor]

It's a hard thing to ask for as what are they selling? Are they selling the history of the sport or the history of the League and they are different beasts.
Obviously I think that are Telling us the history of the VFL/AFL but they are selling it as the history if the sport.

I don't see it that way...they are (mostly) telling the history of the league.

They ALSO tell the history of the sport...as wookie posted earlier, they've put out 2 history books, one about the comp, one about the broader game.

Why is Craig Bradley not recognised as playing 473 games of League football? Does his 98 games in the SANFL mean nothing?

They do both, as they should.
For league history they record his AFL games, but in the hall of fame (for example) they provide the total.

Why can't they recognise the change from state football to national football?

They do that already...they changed their name for one.

Why can't they say in this comp Essendon and Carlton have won 16 premierships but of course the Australian record is held by Port Adelaide with X amount of premierships. Does that sentence hurt them?

Where do they say that? If it's in the history of the VFL/AFL competition, then it's not relevant what Port did in another comp.

(not going to answer the rest as points)

We have it here even in little WA now where they say the record crowd for a game is 43000 yet WAFL crowds recorded 53000 but why is it they won't say that? Are they told to not say these things?
We don't get why they report things this way?
Like you said if they are only talking about this league that's fine, but define that you are and that they are not the Australian a Football records just this leagues records.
I get that it is hard to do that now and accept it is what it is but they seriously do sell it as the sports history not the games history.

I agree with you that they mess up the league/custodian balance sometimes, but I think the break between what is 'league history' and what is 'history of the game as a whole' is a simple proposition...If the other leagues do it, then it's league history.

Every league I've ever heard of records who won their premierships every year, so that's clearly league history, as are best player award winners, games played, goals kicked, etc.

For crowds, again, what would other leagues do?...If, for example, it was an interstate game that held the WA record for attendance, would that be recorded as WAFL history? I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't think they would because it wasn't a game played in that league. Same would apply for other match related stuff from those matches....I suspect it'd be highly unlikely that the WAFL record for highest score would be 'VIC v WAFL @ MCG 50.50.350 v 1.1.7' (again, clearly a hypothetical).


One other point I'll add...The WAFL and SANFL are still around to tell and promote their stories as 'special', if the AFL isn't allowed to treat it's VFL past the same way, then who can?

 

[madmug]

I don't see it that way...they are (mostly) telling the history of the league.

They ALSO tell the history of the sport...as wookie posted earlier, they've put out 2 history books, one about the comp, one about the broader game.



They do both, as they should.
For league history they record his AFL games, but in the hall of fame (for example) they provide the total.



They do that already...they changed their name for one.



Where do they say that? If it's in the history of the VFL/AFL competition, then it's not relevant what Port did in another comp.

(not going to answer the rest as points)



I agree with you that they mess up the league/custodian balance sometimes, but I think the break between what is 'league history' and what is 'history of the game as a whole' is a simple proposition...If the other leagues do it, then it's league history.

Every league I've ever heard of records who won their premierships every year, so that's clearly league history, as are best player award winners, games played, goals kicked, etc.

For crowds, again, what would other leagues do?...If, for example, it was an interstate game that held the WA record for attendance, would that be recorded as WAFL history? I suppose it's possible, but I wouldn't think they would because it wasn't a game played in that league. Same would apply for other match related stuff from those matches....I suspect it'd be highly unlikely that the WAFL record for highest score would be 'VIC v WAFL @ MCG 50.50.350 v 1.1.7' (again, clearly a hypothetical).


One other point I'll add...The WAFL and SANFL are still around to tell and promote their stories as 'special', if the AFL isn't allowed to treat it's VFL past the same way, then who can?

Because, as is the obvious point, the VFL was a state league, not a national league. You want to see it as the same thing, but it is a totally different situation. Its not the Melbourne + Geelong league any more.

You simply look through the situation with Vic-centric eyes. You argue every point with every excuse as to why the VFL records now somehow become 'national' records. You just dont want to see the blatantly obvious difference between a state league & a national league.

I'd expect that anyway. But it doesnt make it right.