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

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If you read this thread, many port fans agree with keeping the VFL/AFL records. It is funny when non-port people tell us our history.

Your time in the sanfl is pre-history.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

They are not saying to wipe out that history, they are just saying to consign it to history, as in not mention it as part of current records.

It was alluded to earlier but must be restated. Most of the current day AFL clubs that played under the VFL banner, contributed greatly to the success of the VFL competition, and therefore contributed greatly to the product that went national. Without the input of those teams, there either would not be a national competition, or it would be a fairly sterile shell of a manufactured competition.

I agree with that to a certain degree but it was the VFL clubs that almost sent the league to the wall. Their incessant spending of money on interstate players trying to win flags. While interstate players may have wanted to come over here to play for the prestige, money talks in a lot of ways and the clubs were essentially spending money that they didn't have. A few more years and half the clubs would have been wiped out. It led to the formation of the VFL/AFL commission and took the decision making and running of things out of the clubs hands.

It wasn't dissimilar to the Cold War. The USA didn't defeat the USSR on the battle field they just kept on spending money on the military and the USSR went bankrupt and fell apart trying to keep up with them.

It was license fees from interstate clubs that bailed the then VFL out to a large degree.

Even though the Eagles and Bears joined in 1987 and the name changed in 1990 from VFL to AFL, the formation of the Commission is probably a more central point in time than either of those two and basically changed the league completely. Yes the clubs, grounds and players were still the same but it fundamentally changed the way the league was run and administered.

The Commission was formed to set policy and has directed the AFL (known then as the VFL), the game's most professional league in December 1985.

In 1993 the AFL Commission assumed national governance of the sport (see Principle 2 below) following the earlier disbanding of the Australian National Football Council. At the same time, control of the AFL passed from the AFL Board of Directors (effectively the 16 AFL clubs) to the Commission[1], with the abolition of the Board of Directors and adoption of new Memorandum and Articles of Association for the AFL. This was a significant change of power as previously the Commission required explicit approval by the League (teams) for major items, such as further Expansion, Mergers, Relocations, Major Capital Works and similar items. The AFL also created an International Policy in 2005 in an attempt to govern the sport worldwide.

In its role as national and international governing body, the AFL Commission also controls and delegates development funding for Australian state and internatonal bodies and leagues. As most of this funding is sourced the revenue and activities associated with the AFL competition, much of the funding is directed to the competition's developing markets. Semi-professional state competitions are generally self-sufficient and receive a much lower percentage of the AFL's funding.

 

[ghostbat12]

The AFL however changes one letter between 1989 and 1990 and suddenly it is an entirely new entity despite the following remaining the same:

All we've done is invited a few new clubs to come and join the fun.

there was no australian league until 1987. after that it was just named as VFL. until then each state had own comeptition only. in 1987 that changed. sure it was only 2 teams but at that point it become australian league. a NATIONAL competition. it wasnt a NATIONAL competition in 1986.

s. melb moving to sydney could be considered, but i doubt anyone at the time thought of it as australian league. i could be wrong, i dont know as i wasnt in sydney/victoria and i stand to be corrected.

given that draft was just before the 1987 season, it makes perfect sense to consider this year as a start of a national competition. it took 3-4 years to change a letter but as victorian club supporters are keen to point out, its "only a letter".

However i am not opposed to melbourne clubs keeping VFL flags as they did win them. it should be referred to x-number of vfl premierships and y-numbner of afl premierships. same clubs, different type of competition. sure there is a 4 year period where u could argue when did football become a national competition but certainly wasnt national in 1986.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

After all of that can someone please tell me how much it is for a birthday cake and how much for the gst?

Are you eating the cake where you are buying it or taking it away? Will you have fresh cream or mock cream added as an extra?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

However i am not opposed to melbourne clubs keeping VFL flags as they did win them. it should be referred to x-number of vfl premierships and y-numbner of afl premierships. same clubs, different type of competition.

Very generous of you, but I think we will stick with the way it should be and is currently recorded. Thanks anyway.

 

[Scotland]

AFL premierships ≠ VFL Premierships.

The AFL officially started in 1990, in the same form it had held since 1987, which was the VFL with 3 clubs outside Victoria. Seeing as 1990 was the year of the official name change, I will consider it the year the national competition began. Obviously the VFL was already becoming a national competition pre-1990 but as esti mentioned you have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere.

The reason the AFL vs VFL arguements continue year after year is the assumption that prior to the formation of the AFL the VFL was and always had been the premier football competition in Australia. This is simply not true and cannot be quantified.

I'm willing to accept anyone's arguement that say Essendon's VFL flags "count" as they were won in the "same" competition that exists today and Port Adelaides do not as they were won in an entirely different league, provided they don't then attempt to claim that each one of Essendon's VFL flags is more valuable/prestigious than Port's SANFL flags and/or the equal of Port's 2004 AFL flag.

In 2009, there is the AFL and there are state competitions. There is a clear distinction between the national (top tier) and state (2nd tier) competitions. Rewind 20-30 years and this was not the case. In the 1970's and 1980's there were 3 strong leagues in the 3 main footy states, and the VFL was becoming much stronger than the WAFL/SANFL by virtue of buying in WA and SA players. Rewind further and it gets murky. How do you quantify who was the best team in Australia in 1955? How about 1930? 1905?

Carlton won the VFL premiership in 1914. Port Adelaide won the SANFL premiership in 1914. Port Adelaide defeated Carlton to win the championship of Australia in 1914. Was Carlton really the premier team in Australia in 1914?

 

[Dan26]

Does this mean that Geelong's VFL side which is essentially in a rebranded VFA now claim the 7 premierships that Geelong won in that competition in the 19th century or can only Geelong's AFL side claim those 7?

The senior Geelong Football club that has competed in the VFL-AFL for 113 years (and in the VFA from 1877 to 1896) has won 15 premierships since the club was formed in 1859.

8 of those have been won in the VFL-AFL.

The other 7 were won in the VFA (which these days is called the VFL)

When Geelong reserves won the VFL (really VFA) a couple of years ago it doesn't "add" to the 7 that the senior club won in the late 1800's because that same senior club is playing in the AFL now. The only way that VFA tally of 7 can be added to is if the current Geelong senior club go back to the VFA (called the VFL now) and win the flag in that league,

Geelong reserves (I would call it) have won one premiership in the VFA/VFL.

If you were listing all the premiership winners of the VFA/VFL, you'd have:

Port Melbourne -15
Willimastown - 13 (or whatever number it is)
etc
etc etc
Geelong Football Club - 7
Geelong reserves - 1

 

[Scotland]

There is no discernable difference in merit betwee the flag won in 1989 and that won in 1990.

How about 1960? 1945? 1910? Are there discernable differences there?

If you draw an arbitrary line anywhere you are going to upset somebody.

You need to come up with some better arguments than a corporate.name change to justify erasing 100 years of history.

I don't think anyone is suggesting erasing anything.

Carlton have 15 VFL flags. Port Adelaide have 34 SANFL flags. Footscray have 9 VFA flags. All these things are part of these clubs' histories.

Why should VFL flags be offcially recognised and others not?

 

[ghostbat12]

Very generous of you, but I think we will stick with the way it should be and is currently recorded. Thanks anyway.

i believe the two are actually separated. to 1990. and then from 1990.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The AFL officially started in 1990

There was no beginning. There was no launch of a new competition. There was merely a renaming of the existing competition. Check the history if you don't believe me.

I'm willing to accept anyone's arguement that say Essendon's VFL flags "count" as they were won in the "same" competition that exists today and Port Adelaides do not as they were won in an entirely different league, provided they don't then attempt to claim that each one of Essendon's VFL flags is more valuable/prestigious than Port's SANFL flags and/or the equal of Port's 2004 AFL flag.

Nobody really says that a flag won many years ago is of a similar quality to one just won in an ever evolving competition. People are insecure and perceive it that way. What they say is that 1 flag = 1 flag in the record books and they are correct. Port's 2004 flag won't stand up quality wise in 50 years time either but it will still count as 1 flag.

Carlton won the VFL premiership in 1914. Port Adelaide won the SANFL premiership in 1914. Port Adelaide defeated Carlton to win the championship of Australia in 1914. Was Carlton really the premier team in Australia in 1914?

This has already been covered. It is feasible that the best team in WA or SA in a given year was as good as if not better than the best team in Victoria that same year. That determines who the better team is, not which competition is better. Would the wooden spooners in SA or WA in those years have challenged the wooden spooners in Victoria? As a whole the VFL was considered stronger, even if there was the odd anamoly.

As explained earlier. English RL sides have won 11 of the 17 club challenges against NRL premiers. Anybody here think English RL is stronger than Australian RL? The FA Cup is fairly riddled with examples of lowly 3rd division sides beating strong 1st division sides on their day. These things are usually exceptions rather than rules.

Then you take into account playing personnel participating and motivations to further confuse the issue.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Are you eating the cake where you are buying it or taking it away? Will you have fresh cream or mock cream added as an extra?

Ummm, what about some candles?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

i believe the two are actually separated. to 1990. and then from 1990.

I believe you are wrong. The AFL clearly considers it history to be consistent since 1896 when the VFL first formed. They do break their history into 10 year groupings and 1990 was the start of one of those groupings but as you can see it is a consistent theme.

http://www.afl.com.au/history/tabid/10296/default.aspx

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ummm, what about some candles?

Is it rude to ask how many? No matter, if you want to light candles, you will have to take it away, our sprinkler system can't cope.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I don't think anyone is suggesting erasing anything.

Carlton have 15 VFL flags. Port Adelaide have 34 SANFL flags. Footscray have 9 VFA flags. All these things are part of these clubs' histories.

Why should VFL flags be offcially recognised and others not?

Maybe erased is not the right word.

But partitioned is.

Essendon has been in the same competition for 110 years and I'm yet to see a decent argument why their pre 1990 flags should be treated any differently to their post 1989 flags.

 

[Fire]

Ignoring the sea of petulant whining by insecure interstate teenagers;

VFL premierships will be disgarded when the competition is superceded.

One can never predict the future, But I assume they will be recorded right up until the death of Australian Rules Football.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

How about 1960? 1945? 1910? Are there discernable differences there?

If you draw an arbitrary line anywhere you are going to upset somebody.?

Simple. Dont draw a line anywhere. Its the same continuous competition since 1897. Whether it was Australias premier competition or not for that entire period it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Dan26]

AFL premierships ≠ VFL Premierships.

Yes they do equal them, for the purposes of historical record keeping. The fact that the league is now of a higher standard with new teams added to it is completely irrelevant.

ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT IT'S THE SAME LEAGUE (WHICH IT IS) AND NO NEW LEAGUE WAS FORMED.

AFL premierships ≠ VFL Premierships.

The AFL officially started in 1990, in the same form it had held since 1987, which was the VFL with 3 clubs outside Victoria. Seeing as 1990 was the year of the official name change, I will consider it the year the national competition began.

No new league began in 1990. The 14 teams that competed were the same 14 who competed in 1989. There was no new league formed. It's the same league. What part of that don't you understand??? The league we now call the AFL began in 1897.

The reason the AFL vs VFL arguements continue year after year is the assumption that prior to the formation of the AFL the VFL was and always had been the premier football competition in Australia. This is simply not true and cannot be quantified.

It doesn't matter if it was the best league, or the worst league. The standard of the league is IRRELEVANT. I'd argu that it was the best on average (because Victoria has around triple the population of SA and WA) but it could have been the worst in theory and it wouldnt make any difference to how we count premierships. What standard the league was doesn't matter.

All that matters is that the current league is the SAME league and no new comp was formed. What is so difficult about that to grasp?

I don't look like I did when I was 6 months old but Im the same person with the same personal history that goes back to when I was born. Just because I look different (or even if I changed my name fron Dan to Bill) doesn't mean I'm not the same person.

I'm willing to accept anyone's arguement that say Essendon's VFL flags "count" as they were won in the "same" competition that exists today..

Essendon 16 flags won since Essendon joined the VFL-AFL in 1897, count as part of VFL-AFL history because it is the same comp.

Essendon 4 VFA flags (in 1891-2-3-4) DON'T count as part of VFL-AFL history. Those 4 flags count as part of the VFA's history and as part of Essendon's own club history but they are NOT part of the history of the VFL-AFL, which has been a continuous competition since 1897.

...and Port Adelaides do not as they were won in an entirely different league

Port's 34 SANFL flags have nothing to do with the history of the VFL-AFL. They count in SANFL histroy only (and Port's own cub history obviously)

provided they don't then attempt to claim that each one of Essendon's VFL flags is more valuable/prestigious than Port's SANFL flags and/or the equal of Port's 2004 AFL flag.

*sigh*

It's got NOTHING to do with the "value" and "prestige" of the flags. People can put their own worth on that.

The issue is whether the flags "count" as part of the current competition and when debating whether they "count" the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER IT'S THE SAME LEAGUE, AND THAT NO NEW LEAGUE WAS FORMED.

Given that no new league was ever formed in 1990, the VFL and the AFL are the same competition. So all the flags count in that competititon history dating from 1897 to 2009. The fact that the league is now national and of a higher standard has absolutely nothing to do with any of this historical record keeping.

Carlton won the VFL premiership in 1914. Port Adelaide won the SANFL premiership in 1914. Port Adelaide defeated Carlton to win the championship of Australia in 1914. Was Carlton really the premier team in Australia in 1914?

It doesn't matter whether they were the best team in Australia or not. The flags they won (whatever standard the VFL was) were won in a competiton which they still play in today, because no new league was formed. The VFL could have been the weakest league in the country, and it wouldn't make any difference to how we count premierships.

Because THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER IT'S THE SAME LEAGUE, AND THAT NO NEW LEAGUE WAS FORMED.

Port joined a different league. Carlton stayed put. Carlton's premierships won in the competition they are in now (since 1897) all count. Why? Because they stayed put in the same competition.

 

[stickman11]

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.

Quibble all you like, Melbourne invented the game!

 

[ghostbat12]

I believe you are wrong. The AFL clearly considers it history to be consistent since 1896 when the VFL first formed. They do break their history into 10 year groupings and 1990 was the start of one of those groupings but as you can see it is a consistent theme.

http://www.afl.com.au/history/tabid/10296/default.aspx

noone is denying that VFL existed. noone is saying that VFL premiership wasnt earned. But a VFL premiership was not some sort of a national title. VFL wasnt a national competition.

noone is saying they should ignore or erase these flags as clearly, the clubs that won them, won them. they are part of their history. they should celebrate them, but they were won in a Victorian competition. not in some national league. then all clubs decided to form a national competition with a draft.

noone is denying that VFL were instrumental in creating AFL. there was ALOT more than a "letter change" between 1987 and 1993. VFL as it was known ceased to exist in 1986. to say it was all the same is wrong and ignoring full history of football in australia.

if you look at that history written on afl website...the fact u have to troll through the website to find it clearly there wasnt too much thought put into it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

noone is denying that VFL existed. noone is saying that VFL premiership wasnt earned. But a VFL premiership was not some sort of a national title. VFL wasnt a national competition.

And now it is....... (sort of) but so what?

Its still the same league and the fact that it that evolved from a state competition is just the way it is.

As Dan says

NO NEW LEAGUE WAS FORMED.

 

[Scotland]

There was no beginning. There was no launch of a new competition. There was merely a renaming of the existing competition. Check the history if you don't believe me.

I'm aware of where the AFL came from. If you think the change from VFL to AFL was 'merely a renaming' then you are deluded.

Nobody really says that a flag won many years ago is of a similar quality to one just won in an ever evolving competition. People are insecure and perceive it that way. What they say is that 1 flag = 1 flag in the record books and they are correct. Port's 2004 flag won't stand up quality wise in 50 years time either but it will still count as 1 flag.

Apples and oranges. Carlton 2009 would probably trounce Carlton of 1897, but so what? The VFL was not ever a national competition, the AFL is. A state league flag is a state league flag, regardless of how strong you consider each state league to be at a given point in time.

This has already been covered. It is feasible that the best team in WA or SA in a given year was as good as if not better than the best team in Victoria that same year. That determines who the better team is, not which competition is better. Would the wooden spooners in SA or WA in those years have challenged the wooden spooners in Victoria? As a whole the VFL was considered stronger, even if there was the odd anamoly.

Who is to say? Would Subiaco beat the 2009 VFL premier? Would the 2009 VFL spooner beat Subiaco? There is no quantification whatsoever to the VFL being 'considered' stronger.

As explained earlier. English RL sides have won 11 of the 17 club challenges against NRL premiers. Anybody here think English RL is stronger than Australian RL? The FA Cup is fairly riddled with examples of lowly 3rd division sides beating strong 1st division sides on their day. These things are usually exceptions rather than rules.

Then you take into account playing personnel participating and motivations to further confuse the issue.

I know little of the English super league and care even less.

Your last paragraph reeks of Victorian arrogance. There were 19 Championships of Australia, and SA teams won 9 of them. Nine off days? Nine flukes?

The VFL was a state competition until it expanded to became the AFL, a national one.

 

[PortBrillance]

Now victorians know how it feels to be told by "outsiders" about their history.

 

[Rob]

And now it is....... (sort of) but so what?

Its still the same league and the fact that it that evolved from a state competition is just the way it is.

As Dan says

NO NEW LEAGUE WAS FORMED.

If you can't see the difference between a national competition and a regional state based competition then there's not much point arguing about it.

That one evolved from the other is a technicality. If the AFL was a new league created in 1990 would that somehow denigrate VFL flags won or make it any less of an achievement? Of course not.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

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.

Totally agree!! Heres why ...

1. How can any team coming in like the Gold Coast be expected to climb a ladder started in 1800's in a state league that they had no chance of ever competing in, because it ended in 1989? Not fair at all and frankly in my mind and many others they don't have to climb a VFL/AFL ladder just the AFL one.

2. AFL began in 1990, VFL died in 1989. There was never a chance of AFL until early 80s how can an interstate team compete with that??

I commend carlton for winning the VFL and for essendon getting the silver medal and Collingwood the bronze great effort total respect... but VFL is dead.. this is AFL.

If anyone cares the eagles are in gold postion, the Lions in silver position AND newly bronze positin is the cats!

I wish they'd put this big ladder up at AFL head quarters!

CURRENT AFL STANDINGS (ACHIEVEMENT LADDER)
Eagles
Lions
Cats
Bombers
North Melbourne
Crows
Hawks
Swans
-------------
Pies
Power
Blues
Saints
Demons
Dogs
Dockers
Tigers

Criteria used in ORDER
Flags Won
Runners Ups
Minor premierships
------------------------------------------
Finals Appearances - Ratio (years in Comp)
W/L %


Its an achievement ladder so how many years you have been in the comp doesn't matter you must win flags to climb the ladder. Win loss % decides only when its rarely deadlocked! Afterall AFL our great game isnt based on who wins most games but who wins the IMPORTANT games ... hence ACHIEVING!!!

eg. Tigers have a slightly better overall W/L ratiothan the dockers BUT only made finals twice same as dockers. Dockers obviously are 2/15 while the tigers are 2/20 seasons. Dockers for my mind have achieved slightly better at this stage.

VFL OVERALL STANDINGS, using same criteria
Carlton
Essendon
Collingwood
Demons
Fitzroy
Hawks
Tigers
Cats
North Melbourne
South Melb/Sydney
St Kilda
Footscray
West Coast
Bears
University

South Melb might be ahead of North did they win 3 flags?

 

[Scotland]

Essendon has been in the same competition for 110 years and I'm yet to see a decent argument why their pre 1990 flags should be treated any differently to their post 1989 flags.

All of Essendon's flags should be recognised, AFL, VFL, VFA or otherwise.

The AFL has cocked up by only acknowledging VFL/AFL records as 'official'.

Essendon's should read 2 AFL, 14 VFL, 'x' VFA. Port's history should read 34 SANFL, 1 AFL. Etc.

Yes they do equal them, for the purposes of historical record keeping. The fact that the league is now of a higher standard with new teams added to it is completely irrelevant.

For the purposes of historical record keeping West Coast contested the 1987, 1988 and 1989 VFL seasons. Had we won the flag in any of those 3 years we would now have one VFL premiership cup and 3 AFL premiership cups. If that were the case I would have no problem with the history books saying '1 VFL flag, 3 AFL flags'. If we left the AFL and played a year in the NTFL and won that the books would read '1 VFL, 3 AFL, 1 NTFL'. Etc.

Manchester United have won the English First Division 7 times and the English Premier League 11 times. OK, the EPL is technically a new league which began in 1992 with 22 teams from the first division all leaving at once the FA to join it, but the record books still list the titles separately. There is now a Champsionship and leagues 1 and 2 instead of Divisions 2, 3 and 4. If a team who who has 10 Division 2 titles wins the championship the record books will read '10 division 2 titles, 1 football championship' despite it being the same competition...