When to count AFL premierships, and NOT AFL/VFL ones?

[wikipediaAFLproject]

I think eventually we are going to stop counting the VFL premierships won by clubs, and simply say that they have won x amount of AFL premierships.

Already people say stuff like, "yeah we have won 10 premierships, but most of them were back in the VFL".

I reckon give it 15 years, and a lot of people will only be quoting AFL premierships, and saying the Bulldogs have never won an AFL premiership.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Never. You cant undo history.

 

[Rosstickle]

Why would you ever stop counting them? It's the same league. It's not like the 1990 flag was somehow better than the 89 flag.

 

[Spluff]

The AFL is just a rebranding of the VFL. They'll still count VFL premierships until long after we're dead.

 

[Hawkinspired]

He has a point. No-one really talks about VFA premierships anymore. Carlton, Essendon and Geelong all had half a dozen premierships in this league. That was over 100 years ago and the competition has had two name changes since then. Maybe in another 100 years...

The only exception of course being Port Adelaide supporters who are blinded by reality and think they won their 34 premierships in the AFL.

 

[eldorado]

Well, not quite.

It's not as if the change happened in a day, when a 12 league Victorian league suddenly became an 18 team Australia wide league. It was gradual, even if the name change wasn't.

Are we going to put different provisos in?

Team x won 4 in the 12 team Vic league, 0 in the 13 team Vic +West Coast League, 1 in the 14 team Vic + West Coast/Crows league...etc etc

If you are going to make the distinction purely on an arbitary name change, your on thin ice logically.

 

[Rosstickle]

He has a point. No-one really talks about VFA premierships anymore. Carlton, Essendon and Geelong all had half a dozen premierships in this league. That was over 100 years ago and the competition has had two name changes since then. Maybe in another 100 years...

The only exception of course being Port Adelaide supporters who are blinded by reality and think they won their 34 premierships in the AFL.

The VFA was a completely different league.

 

[jim boy]

The VFA was a completely different league.

Was and still is, otherwise would have won three flags in the last three years, not two.

 

[Rob]

I'm sure they'll always be counted, but even now they are just about already distinguished. Clearly a premiership won in a national league is a far greater achievement than a premiership won in a regional state league.

In any given year it would be disputable that the VFL premiers were even the best team in Australia. Nowadays the AFL premiers would belt any side outside the AFL by about 35 goals.

 

[Johnson#26]

what the heck is this? you cannot be serious. cb getting dragged into such a debate, but you cannot, cannot, cannot wash away history like this. no way whatsoever. they didn't start again in 1908 when richmond and university started, did they?

 

[Dan26]

I'm sure they'll always be counted, but even now they are just about already distinguished. Clearly a premiership won in a national league is a far greater achievement than a premiership won in a regional state league

Not really.

It's all relative, depending on the standard of the league you are playing in.

A premiership won in the then named VFL was still just as hard to win (not taking into account that there are less teams of course), because, whilst the standard of the other teams was lower, so was the standard of your own team, so relatively speaking, they're still just as hard to win.

That's why Port's achievements are so great. So what if the SANFL wasn't quite as good as the VFL? Port were competing in a league of a certain standard, and they had to win their premierships relative to that standard. It doesn't matter how high or low the standard is, they are still just as hard to win.

The only thing that determines if premierships are counted as part of the same league are if they were won in the same league.

The VFA is a different league to the VFL-AFL, so VFA flags are counted seperately.

The VFL is the same league as the AFL. There was no new legaue formed. The competition was simply re-named to reflect that it was now a national competition, but it's the same league with the same history, so the premierships won from 1897 onwards all count as part of the same league.

 

[Wally Carter]

I believe that it's inevitable that VFL flags will get shelved.

If the interstate teams ever outnumber the Victorian teams, it will be a dead set certainty.

 

[Rosstickle]

That's why Port's achievements are so great. So what if the SANFL wasn't quite as good as the VFL? Port were competing in a league of a certain standard, and they had to win their premierships relative to that standard. It doesn't matter how high or low the standard is, they are still just as hard to win.

Are you serious? By that logic local footy teams premierships are just as impressive because although their opponents are weaker, they are too so it's just as hard to win.

 

[invinciBlues]

He has a point. No-one really talks about VFA premierships anymore. Carlton, Essendon and Geelong all had half a dozen premierships in this league. That was over 100 years ago and the competition has had two name changes since then. Maybe in another 100 years...

The only exception of course being Port Adelaide supporters who are blinded by reality and think they won their 34 premierships in the AFL.

No. The VFA was a different league, and the champions of the colony (?) before that.

VFA continued after the best clubs left. Surprise surprise, after the best clubs (and St Kilda) left, Bulldogs and North are suddenly able to win some premierships. But we don't count them because its a different league.

Still havent figured out why Hawthorn got an invite though. Perhaps they were meant to be the "new" St Kilda

 

[Dan26]

Are you serious? By that logic local footy teams premierships are just as impressive because although their opponents are weaker, they are too so it's just as hard to win.

That's exactly right.

Take, VAFA divsion one. The amateurs. Sure it's not as high a standard as the SANFL, WAFL, VFL or AFL. But it's still just as hard to win because it's all relative to the standard of the league you are competing in (not taking inot account the lower number of teams)

In fact, the only thing that makes a league easier to win, is the number of teams. But that has nothing to do with the standard of the league. i.e Rugby Legaue S.O.O (2 teams) is a higher standard than the 16-club NRL. But S.O.O is easier to win, because the teams in it should win every second year.

You could have a low-standard Aussie Rules country league with 25 teams, and it would be harder to win that flag than a 16-team AFL flag, because you've only got a 1 in 25 chance.

It's all relative.

The fact that the AFL is the highest standard Aussie Rules league in the country doesn't make it any harder to win than any other 16 team Aussie Rules league. I know they've got to train harder and all that, but ALL the clubs train harder, so once again, it's all relative to the standard that you're competing in at the time.

 

[Wally Carter]

VFA continued after the best clubs left.

Incorrect.

North finished above Carlton and Geelong in 1896, and Footscray and North both beat VFL sides whilst they were in the VFA.

It took many years for the three 1925 inductees to catch up to their longer entrenched counterparts and they were definitely shown no special favors.

However, since World War 2, the 1925 inductees have won roughly one in four flags.

 

[SASQUATCH09]

I think this OP is a good example of when an opinion can be wrong.

 

[invinciBlues]

Incorrect.

North finished above Carlton and Geelong in 1896

No, its quite correct.

How many VFA flags did you win before the split? The best clubs left, then your club prospered.

 

[estibador]

You could have a low-standard Aussie Rules country league with 25 teams, and it would be harder to win that flag than a 16-team AFL flag, because you've only got a 1 in 25 chance.

It's all relative.

The fact that the AFL is the highest standard Aussie Rules league in the country doesn't make it any harder to win than any other 16 team Aussie Rules league. I know they've got to train harder and all that, but ALL the clubs train harder, so once again, it's all relative to the standard that you're competing in at the time.

Not exactly. I know you like to reduce everything to a pure numbers game but there's other issues at work than just the number of teams in a league.

One thing you're overlooking is that the lower the standard of the league the easier it is for a club to recruit a couple of guys who are heaps better than the average standard who can have a massive impact on games at that level.

You add a young ex-AFL player or a state level quality player to an amateur club and they absolutely carve up the opposition. I played against one ex-AFL player in C grade amateurs who kicked a lazy 13 goals from the midfield against us. You can't tell me that's relative to the standard of the rest of the league. Add in a couple of those guys and you can make your team near on unbeatable in comparison to their opposition.

The AFL already has the best of the best playing and clubs can't just go and recruit players who are that much better than anyone else in the league. Any improvement over the opposition is incremental and hard fought - that's what makes AFL premierships so much harder to win than any other league. And that's before we even mention the stringent equalisation policies expressly designed to make it hard for you to gain an advantage over the opposition which clubs in amateur leagues don't have to worry about.

 

[zero]

VFL flags, won in a suburban comp in a single city, have alot more in common with the WAFL and SANFL than the AFL.

there is no big bang, it happened gradually, but make no mistake, VFL premierships are worth far less than AFL premierships.

this idea that a flag won in an inner-city melbourne comp 50 years ago by butchers and labourers (won mainly by the team with the most money) is the same as a flag in a national professional league with equalisation pressures is kind of stupid.

play any modern side against the best of the butchers and bakers from 50 years ago and it would be a thrashing, not because the modern players are more talented, but simply because the best of the best in the country are guaranteed to be playing in the AFL, and nowadays they spend their entire professional lives perfecting their game.

i mean, im sure the fans of those clubs that bought 500 flags will cry and whinge and bleat about their 500 bought flags as the same as the geelong or lions flags, but they plainly arent, and its obvious to anyone not invested in it

 

[Eastern Rangers]

They still stop counting when Fremantle wins a flag. Once that happens every other club has run our of excuses for the fact they are yet to win an AFL flag.

 

[Scrooge]

It is obvious that supporters of the Melbourne clubs that have won many VFL premierships, such as Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond are all arguing vehemently for VFL flags to be rated equal to AFL premierships because the VFL simply changed to the AFL, upon introduction of interstate teams.

VFL flags should continued to be counted in the overall scheme of things. However, VFL flags should be distinguished from AFL flags when looking into any clubs history. Because VFL flags and AFL flags are different, that is the truth, even the name suggest that.

In fairness to the interstate clubs, no interstate club have had more than 23 years of opportunities to have won VFL/AFL premierships (apart from Sydney/South Melbourne), whereas some Melbourne clubs had over 100 years of opportunities. So it isn't exactly fair to compare Carlton's 16 flags to WCE 3 flags.

IMHO, AFL flags are much more special.

Personally, I reckon that flags won since 1987 (year that WCE and Brisbane joined, and when and game truly became national) have much more weight than flags won prior.

 

[Riggy1]

I already veiw AFL premierships over VFL premierships
The VFL was never the outright best, and just using North Adelaide as an example
Beat Carlton in 1972
Beat Melbourne and Collingwood in 1987 (or was it 1986 )

but since the league became truely national is when I count them

but it's the date that is argueble
use 1986/1987 (whichever year West Coast joint), 1990 or 1991?

I just use 1990 because of the change of name, but 1991 is probably the fairest (all the mainland states had a team)

 

[Rob]

That's exactly right.

Take, VAFA divsion one. The amateurs. Sure it's not as high a standard as the SANFL, WAFL, VFL or AFL. But it's still just as hard to win because it's all relative to the standard of the league you are competing in (not taking inot account the lower number of teams)

In fact, the only thing that makes a league easier to win, is the number of teams. But that has nothing to do with the standard of the league. i.e Rugby Legaue S.O.O (2 teams) is a higher standard than the 16-club NRL. But S.O.O is easier to win, because the teams in it should win every second year.

You could have a low-standard Aussie Rules country league with 25 teams, and it would be harder to win that flag than a 16-team AFL flag, because you've only got a 1 in 25 chance.

It's all relative.

The fact that the AFL is the highest standard Aussie Rules league in the country doesn't make it any harder to win than any other 16 team Aussie Rules league. I know they've got to train harder and all that, but ALL the clubs train harder, so once again, it's all relative to the standard that you're competing in at the time.

You missed the point I was making.

It's not about how hard they are to win, it's the level of achievement. In the same way an Olympic Gold medal is more of an achievement than a Commonwealth games gold medal, an AFL premiership is more of an achievement than a VFL one.

Clearly, the AFL premiers are the best team in the country. All the VFL premiers could lay claim to is the best team in Victoria.

 

[PowerForGood]

I think its interesting that when statistics are quoted in the English Premier League (which was born from the old Division One, and has the same clubs, same relegation and promotion, etc), they only quote 1992 onwards. ie When Tottenham beat Wigan 9-1 a couple of weeks ago, they didn't quote it against anything from 1936 or 1902, but only 1992 onwards - it was the second biggest win in Premier League history, and Jermain Defoe's 5 goals equalled Andy Cole and Alan Shearer's Premier League record.

The only time that historical stats are quoted is when they quote chamionships (ie they don't call them EPL championships, but championships in general) and they only accede to that because the old Division One was still regarded as a national chamionship.

The VFL was a state league, it is now a national league. In 1989, no-one said that the premier was the NATIONAL premier, they were only the STATE premier as it was still regarded as a STATE competition.
In 1990, the premier could lay claim to the title NATIONAL premier, as it was a NATIONAL competition.

The name change in 1990 is as good a point as any to start thinking of them as NATIONAL flags, but VFL flags are not AFL flags no matter how similar the teams were before and after. There is no 1989 AFL flag.