When did the VFL overtake the VFA in popularity?

[Gydafud]

I remember reading that sometime during the 50s or 60s there was talk of having a promotion/relegation system between the VFL and VFA, but the terms of the promotion and relegation could not be agreed on.

The VFA wanted the competition winner to go straight in for whatever bottom team was relegated but the VFL wanted to have a play off.

In my opinion both competitions would have been better for it, but it would mean national expansion would have been a lot harder down the track.

 

[Albert Ross]

I think Channel 7 unfortunately cause the eventual demise of the VFA by combining with the VFL to convince the Hamer Government to grant Sunday VFL football.

(old post but ...)

The Vic Government actually banned VFL from Sundays. That gave the VFA a free kick in that they could broadcast on Sunday. So much of the nostalgia / golden age of VFA was actually a byproduct of a quirky government law. The VFL responded by moving the Swans to Sydney allowing them to operate outside Victorian law and broadcast against the VFA ... the VFA was toast and almost bankrupt inside 5 years.

 

[Oneiros]

I remember reading that sometime during the 50s or 60s there was talk of having a promotion/relegation system between the VFL and VFA, but the terms of the promotion and relegation could not be agreed on.

The VFA wanted the competition winner to go straight in for whatever bottom team was relegated but the VFL wanted to have a play off.

In my opinion both competitions would have been better for it, but it would mean national expansion would have been a lot harder down the track.

I think national expansion may have gone down a slightly different track if that mindset had been present, the WAFL and SANFL clubs either joining the VFA in feeding into an AFL/VFL, or all three WAFL/SANFL/VFL feeding into an AFL.

(And then the Vics wouldn't be having to deal with the big interstate behemoths with their massive catchment sizes)

A less wealthy, less monolithic competition, but one with more heart and character.

 

[Stiubhart]

The VFL and VFA comps were pretty even up to 1920. The VFL was only arguably slightly better, without any certainty. When WW1 ended the VFL started to take over through continued expansion. Sounds familiar doesn't it.

However up to 1920 the comps were even. A common occurrence would be clubs from either leagues offering money to players to change leagues.

A couple of interesting facts. IIRC Fitzroy won the wooden spoon and premiership in the same year. Some time during WW1, only 4 teams, Roys finished 4th and then won all the finals.

Also think there was a game between Stkilda (VFL)and North Melbourne(VFA) during WW1. Kangas smashed the Saints. Apparently all in brawls were more common than anything else.

One thing to remember is the history between the two leagues is one of bitterness, recrimination and outright hatred until about the 80's/90's when the VFA went into permanent decline

Yep , in 1916. The four clubs that played that year were - Carlton , Collingwood , Richmond and Fitzroy.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I remember reading that sometime during the 50s or 60s there was talk of having a promotion/relegation system between the VFL and VFA, but the terms of the promotion and relegation could not be agreed on.

The VFA wanted the competition winner to go straight in for whatever bottom team was relegated but the VFL wanted to have a play off.

In my opinion both competitions would have been better for it, but it would mean national expansion would have been a lot harder down the track.

Correct - a little known historical tidbit. Though I think from memory it was actually in the late 40s (could be wrong).

VFA demanded direct promotion for their premier, whilst the VFL wanted a playoff with their wooden spooner to decide who would play on the higher league (VFL) the following season.

Neither side would give ground and talks collapsed, and were never restarted.

I've read a newspaper clipping from the time about it somewhere on the web, no idea where it was though. Possibly a library archive or something.

 

[Oneiros]

Correct - a little known historical tidbit. Though I think from memory it was actually in the late 40s (could be wrong).

VFA demanded direct promotion for their premier, whilst the VFL wanted a playoff with their wooden spooner to decide who would play on the higher league (VFL) the following season.

Neither side would give ground and talks collapsed, and were never restarted.

I've read a newspaper clipping from the time about it somewhere on the web, no idea where it was though. Possibly a library archive or something.

Decent chance that if the VFA had given ground then, they would be in a MUCH more prosperous position nowadays.

The reason people migrated away from the old state league teams to the new teams was simply because they were locked out of the top-flight with no hope of getting there. There is a massive difference between cheering on a team competing for a second-rate title and cheering on a team trying to enter the big leagues. This is why smaller Championship, League 1 and 2 teams in England still draw supporters by their thousands and substantial incomes - because there is hope, which simply doesn't exist for the lower leagues in Australia anymore.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I think national expansion may have gone down a slightly different track if that mindset had been present, the WAFL and SANFL clubs either joining the VFA in feeding into an AFL/VFL, or all three WAFL/SANFL/VFL feeding into an AFL.

(And then the Vics wouldn't be having to deal with the big interstate behemoths with their massive catchment sizes)

A less wealthy, less monolithic competition, but one with more heart and character.

It's a very cool idea but unfortunately I don't think we would be in much of a different place to now.

Ultimately it's about support and there wouldn't have been any more people supporting footy - they just would have been divided up amongst more clubs.

The heyday of the VFA was the 60s and 70s due to the Saturday / Sunday thing - a lot of people would watch their league team on a Sat and their association team on a Sunday. Bringing them into direct competition would have split that to some extent.

I think ultimately the same old chasm would have developed - the same strong clubs which dominated the VFL, a few yoyo clubs that went up and down, and then the association clubs who wouldn't have had a hope of VFL success.

It's all about economic necessities so I think expansion would have happened in much the same way - probably a breakaway of the strong VFL clubs (as happened in England with the Premier League) and they would have got the West Coasts, Brisbanes etc for the money. And there wouldn't have been relegation as it wouldn't have been in their interests.

As I said, a cool thought but really things happen because of economic factors, and those factors would still have been there.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

About 1899.

 

[Riccardo11]

The VFL broke away with the most well supported clubs, so it was immediately the preferred competition. There were a few times when the VFA rivaled the popularity of the league, most notably in the 1920's and 30's, as the the VFA allowed the flick pass and removed the wingers, resulting in a faster game than the VFL, and the late 70's to mid 80's, when the VFA was seen as the bastion of community sport in contrast the the big business the VFL was becoming.

Having said that, the VFA was never even close to being as popular or publicized as the VFL, which lead to the formers implosion starting in the late 80's and it's status now as Victorian reserves comp with a few dusty relics.

 

[Gydafud]

Was the re-naming of the VFA to the VFL just a final insult? I have always wondered the reasoning for that.

 

[The Speaker]

It's all about economic necessities so I think expansion would have happened in much the same way - probably a breakaway of the strong VFL clubs (as happened in England with the Premier League) and they would have got the West Coasts, Brisbanes etc for the money. And there wouldn't have been relegation as it wouldn't have been in their interests.

More likely they would've called upon the strongest SANFL and WAFL clubs to join them.

 

[Riccardo11]

Was the re-naming of the VFA to the VFL just a final insult? I have always wondered the reasoning for that.

The reports indicate the VFA chose to rename itself as the VFL name and badge were more recognizable and a stronger brand than the VFA. It was a pretty silly move, for me, I'd love to see it changed back or have a two division system, with AFL reserves clubs in a division called the VFL and stand alone teams in the VFA.

 

[SJ]

Was the re-naming of the VFA to the VFL just a final insult? I have always wondered the reasoning for that.

I have no idea why that occurred. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[zachary]

I love anything to do with football history, but this thread reminds me of how angry I am that the VFA is now called the VFL. So the AFL used to be called the VFL and the VFA is now called the VFL. So when the papers say that Hawthorn has 11 VFL/AFL premierships they are not referring to the VFA because Hawthorn never won a VFA premiership. But the Box Hill Hawks won the VFL premiership this year and oooohh I'm going cross-eyed.
The VFA has a fabulous history - why can't they just change the name back.
My anecdote for the discussion is that in the early 80's, I found myself in the presence of a senior cleric from the Presbyterian church (not religious myself) and he was discussing with alot of learned people the proposed merger of the Presbyterians and the Methodists. His pronouncement was that it would be as stupid and unlikely as if the VFA were to merge with the VFL. Everyone said "hear hear".
That was Melbourne in those days, when Phil Cleary and Fred Cook played, and they got crowds of 30,000 to VFA semi finals.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Name change is ok by me. It puts a clear line in the sand between when it was actually a dinkum footy competition, and an AFL-run joke.

VFA was and remains the VFA, not this VFL s**t we have now.

 

[Roylion]

A couple of interesting facts. IIRC Fitzroy won the wooden spoon and premiership in the same year. Some time during WW1, only 4 teams, Roys finished 4th and then won all the finals.

Fitzroy didn't finish last then.

It was Richmond that finished last at the end of the entire season. Richmond won the wooden spoon in 1916.

 

[The Speaker]

I love anything to do with football history, but this thread reminds me of how angry I am that the VFA is now called the VFL. So the AFL used to be called the VFL and the VFA is now called the VFL. So when the papers say that Hawthorn has 11 VFL/AFL premierships they are not referring to the VFA because Hawthorn never won a VFA premiership. But the Box Hill Hawks won the VFL premiership this year and oooohh I'm going cross-eyed.

There are numerous things about the way the AFL has been created that are genuinely frustrating.

 

[Ted38]

I think Channel 7 unfortunately cause the eventual demise of the VFA by combining with the VFL to convince the Hamer Government to grant Sunday VFL football.

That said, the VFA were responsible for bringing quality football to the growing suburbs, by introducing the second division in the 1960's.

Clubs like Kilsyth, Berwick, Waverley, Werribee, Box Hill were starting to come along, alongside the likes of Sunshine, Yarraville, Geelong West etc.

I remember 1988 very well. The second division was disbanded - and clubs like Geelong West, Sunshine, Yarraville, Kilsyth, Waverley bit the dust.

The remaining clubs: Brunswick, Box Hill, Camberwell, Coburg, Dandenong, Frankston, Oakleigh, Port Melbourne, Prahran, Preston, Sandringham, Springvale, Werribee, Williamstown.

It was still popular. The 1990 VFA Grand Final at Carlton between Springvale and Williamstown was a full house. By then though, Brunswick had a failed merger attempt with Broadmeadows (gone by the mid-90's - the Combine was a classic)..Camberwell had truly bitten the dust - with eventually Dandenong, Oakleigh and Prahran absorbed into the TAC Cup.

That said, the VFA did try a move into regional football. it admitted North Ballarat and Traralgon first - the latter famously coached by Joffa Cunningham. Bendigo would replace Traralgon.

That's interesting, approximately what year/years was that?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

That's interesting, approximately what year/years was that?

When VFA became the VFL. As part of the "new league", Traralgon and North Ballarat were admitted as "expansion" clubs, I guess you could call them.

Traralgon only lasted 2 seasons before heading back to their local league. North Ballarat are still there, with a partial alignment with North Melbourne.

 

[Ted38]

When VFA became the VFL. As part of the "new league", Traralgon and North Ballarat were admitted as "expansion" clubs, I guess you could call them.

Traralgon only lasted 2 seasons before heading back to their local league. North Ballarat are still there, with a partial alignment with North Melbourne.

Thanks mate.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Fitzroy didn't finish last then.

It was Richmond that finished last at the end of the entire season. Richmond won the wooden spoon in 1916.

Last after H&A, premiers after finals round robin.

 

[Roylion]

Last after H&A, premiers after finals round robin.

So Fitzroy didn't finish last at the end of the season. Richmond did.

The finals in 1916 were played under the second amended Argus system. Wasn't quite a round robin.

In Week One: the First Semi-Final was played between 2nd vs 4th
In Week Two: the Second Semi-Final was played between 1st vs 3rd.
In Week Three: a final was played between Winner of SF1 vs Winner SF2

If the Minor Premier won the Week Three final, then that team was immediately awarded the Major Premiership.
If the winner of the Week Three final was not the Minor Premier, then the finals progress to Week Four. The final in week three became known as either the Final or the Preliminary Final.

In Week Four: the Grand Final was played between Minor Premier vs Winner of Week 3.

 

[FFS Kick it]

So Fitzroy didn't finish last at the end of the season. Richmond did.

The finals in 1916 were played under the second amended Argus system. Wasn't quite a round robin.

In Week One: the First Semi-Final was played between 2nd vs 4th
In Week Two: the Second Semi-Final was played between 1st vs 3rd.
In Week Three: a final was played between Winner of SF1 vs Winner SF2

If the Minor Premier won the Week Three final, then that team was immediately awarded the Major Premiership.
If the winner of the Week Three final was not the Minor Premier, then the finals progress to Week Four. The final in week three became known as either the Final or the Preliminary Final.

In Week Four: the Grand Final was played between Minor Premier vs Winner of Week 3.

You must like being perverse. Fitzroy in 1916 won 2 games out of the 12 H&A. They were last. That is when the wooden spoon is decided. Changing ladder positions after finals is really only for drafting purposes, which is a recent phenomena. No conjecture here except if you want to bloody minded over an anomaly of a season I believe is never repeated again in AFL/VFL history.The fact only 4 teams existed which allowed Fitzroy to participate in the finals is extraordinary. Fitzroy won all of its finals meaning they won the premiership despite the challenge from the minor premiers. They were still wooden spooners. Any argument or debate has arisen recently because of how the ladder is rearranged for the draft after the finals.
I would think you would be proud of winning only 2 games and then beating the minor premier who had won 10/12. Perhaps the biggest turnaround in AFL/VFL history or the biggest choke from a minor premier.


http://stats.rleague.com/afl/seas/ladders/laddersyby.html#1916


regards FFS

 

[Roylion]

You must like being perverse. Fitzroy in 1916 won 2 games out of the 12 H&A. They were last. That is when the wooden spoon is decided.

Looks it's a nice story that the wooden spooner became the premier and I'm sure it a nice trivia question for football followers.

And yes, in most seasons, the bottom position on the ladder would decide the wooden spoon because at that point, the season of said team has concluded. They cannot alter their ladder position any further because there are no more matches to play.

In 1916...that wasn't the case. All teams went on in the finals. Just as the premier hadn't been decided at the end of the home and away season, likewise the wooden spooner hadn't been decided.

If all teams go to the finals, then they have not concluded their season. Fitzroy had not concluded their season.

Changing ladder positions after finals is really only for drafting purposes, which is a recent phenomena.

No it's not. Fitzroy are widely recognised as the premiers. They moved from 4th to 1st in 1916. Carlton were the minor premiers but are now recognised as finishing second on the ladder (i.e the runners up). Ladder position changes during the finals and it did in 1916.

The fact only 4 teams existed which allowed Fitzroy to participate in the finals is extraordinary. Fitzroy won all of its finals meaning they won the premiership despite the challenge from the minor premiers. They were still wooden spooners. Any argument or debate has arisen recently because of how the ladder is rearranged for the draft after the finals.

The ladder was re-arranged in 1916 and was done so before the first draft in 1986. I don't think there's any dispute that Fitzroy finished 1st on said ladder in 1916.

Regards Roylion

 

[FFS Kick it]

Looks it's a nice story that the wooden spooner became the premier and I'm sure it a nice trivia question for football followers.

And yes, in most seasons, the bottom position on the ladder would decide the wooden spoon because at that point, the season of said team has concluded. They cannot alter their ladder position any further because there are no more matches to play.

In 1916...that wasn't the case. All teams went on in the finals. Just as the premier hadn't been decided at the end of the home and away season, likewise the wooden spooner hadn't been decided.

If all teams go to the finals, then they have not concluded their season. Fitzroy had not concluded their season.

It has nothing to do with conclusion of a season. The wooden spoon is determined after the H&A same as the Minor premier. In every other season this was the case. Any historical record of the period shows Fitzroy 4th(last) and also the premiers. Consistency is important in the presentation of any database. Even one that has data that is anomalous. Finals are usually seen as a new season, which many do now.

No it's not. Fitzroy are widely recognised as the premiers. They moved from 4th to 1st in 1916. Carlton were the minor premiers but are now recognised as finishing second on the ladder (i.e the runners up). Ladder position changes during the finals and it did in 1916.

Sorry the wooden spoon is determined after the H&A season, not after finals, so your point doesn't stand. Records of this season and all other seasons show an asterix next to the premier whether first after the H&A or not. The wooden spooner is always the last team after the H&A



The ladder was re-arranged in 1916 and was done so before the first draft in 1986. I don't think there's any dispute that Fitzroy finished 1st on said ladder in 1916.

This is where splitting hairs comes in. Anyway It is a good debate no doubt, we agree to disagree.
I'm just happy Carlton choked


regards FFS