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

[Monkey King]

I believe you are wrong. The AFL clearly considers it history to be consistent since 1896 when the VFL first formed. http://www.afl.com.au/history/tabid/10296/default.aspx

This is the most perplexing aspect. The league remains entirely intact, as it has for more than 100 years and does itself consider this stance official and unalterable.

No one's putting a gun to supporters' heads and making them align to an AFL team. If you want to be a part of the league, you've just gotta accept it's a very old league and your arrival, while adding plenty of positives, doesn't change that one little bit.

 

[PortBrillance]

no offence but Im guessing your a WCE fan that has just made an account in the last few minutes. Anyway Brisbane > WCE premierships

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

Don't flatter yourselves, this topic has been around every bit as long as Port's identity crisis.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

A technicality? Now there is a revisionist term if ever I heard one.

So the VFL do the work to go national and the rewards for being the first to reach that summit is that they are asked to cut off their VFL history and acknowledge it only in passing as a now dead competition, while the SANFL and WAFL get to continue on their traditions?

I agree that there is not much point arguing it ... but they do.

Is Barack Obama, a different person as US President than he was as a school kid living in Indonesia with his mother? Well yes, technically in terms of life experiences, community work done in between, education and ascent to the highest political office in the world, he's a vastly different person. But in reality he is the same person and all of those parts make up the whole.

Wow, of course there is a difference between a competition where you drive across town to play other teams and a competition where you fly and stay overnight. Of course there is a difference between a competition where you are bound to a salary cap (which came in for the 1985 VFL season by the way) and a competition where you pay what you want to. There was also a difference between the amateur competition of earlier in the century and the semi-professional competition of the 1980s too. Should we divide them? That seems a fairly significant change, probably more significant than merely expanding geographically.

There is an idea. Every time a major change occurs, let's restart the records.

State boundaries and national competition rhetoric abounds with zero thought to evolution or what got the VFL to that point. Yeah, that'll convince 'em.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

I know the difference, and the fact that it evolved into a national competition is more than a technicality, its an historical fact and the crux of the argument.

Clubs that have been in this league for 100 years have been in the ONE competition the whole time. And the total number of flags they have won in that period must be counted equally and not pigeon holed into "before" and "after" an abritrary date.

The AFL wasnt a new league created in 1990. No teams left the VFL to start up a new competition with its own history. It just didnt happen.

 

[Rob]

A technicality? Now there is a revisionist term if ever I heard one.

So the VFL do the work to go national and the rewards for being the first to reach that summit is that they are asked to cut off their VFL history and acknowledge it only in passing as a now dead competition, while the SANFL and WAFL get to continue on their traditions?

I agree that there is not much point arguing it ... but they do.

Is Barack Obama, a different person as US President than he was as a school kid living in Indonesia with his mother? Well yes, technically in terms of life experiences, community work done in between, education and ascent to the highest political office in the world, he's a vastly different person. But in reality he is the same person and all of those parts make up the whole.

Of course he's not a different person, but you've missed the point.

Do you think America considers his win in the year 3 class president election on the same level as his most recent election victory?

Wow, of course there is a difference between a competition where you drive across town to play other teams and a competition where you fly and stay overnight. Of course there is a difference between a competition where you are bound to a salary cap (which came in for the 1985 VFL season by the way) and a competition where you pay what you want to. There was also a difference between the amateur competition of earlier in the century and the semi-professional competition of the 1980s too. Should we divide them? That seems a fairly significant change, probably more significant than merely expanding geographically.

There is an idea. Every time a major change occurs, let's restart the records.

State boundaries and national competition rhetoric abounds with zero thought to evolution or what got the VFL to that point. Yeah, that'll convince 'em.

Don't try and turn it into a black and white issue as if it's about either acknowledging them or ignoring them.

It's not about restarting the records, it's about acknowledging that VFL flags as simply not as great an achievement as AFL flags. If the VFL was a national competition and the champions of the VFL were national champions instead of Victorian champions, then they should be regarded on the same level. But that wasn't the case - that VFL premiers were not Australian champions is a historical fact. You can't change that.

I note you didn't address the question, so i'll ask it again.

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?

 

[Papa Juggs]

If you take out the VFL flags it makes interstate clubs look strong and the proudest Melbourne clubs look weak.

This is why as long as the home of this sport is in Victoria these VFL flags will be counted.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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.

The AFL as in the AFL competition is recording things correctly. They are only responsible for keeping their competition history, that which began in 1897. They are doing so.

AFL as in AFL, the keeper of the code are a different animal again. They have an obligation to keep the history of the code dating back to Wills and Harrison and the first club in 1859. They also have an obligation to recognise the code across the country and the world including the history of other clubs. This is done as an aside to AFL the competition records, as it should be.

You continuing to spout these things is only restating an opinion. If you state them as fact, you only repeat a mistruth. Nobody can tell you what to think, you have free will. You can only try to tell people what is, you can't force them to accept it.

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.

The cups themselves would have different letters on them but officially you would be considered to have 4 flags with nothing dividing them. Interesting that being a national competition is supposed to be the dividing line on this issue and people are deluded if they think it was only a letter change, yet you wouldn't consider your globetrotting, salary cap bound, draft bound Eagles to be genuine national premiers because the name was different, simply for the sake of an arbitrary end date.

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.

You need say nothing else than the bold part. If the AFL sprung up out of the ground with a combination of VFL, SANFL, WAFL minds agreeing to form a new national competition, then certain clubs from each state would have been invited to join and you would have had a new starting date for a new competition.

You did not have a mass exodus of VFL clubs all joining the AFL, there was no split, no revolution. There was the same personnel with the same clubs going about their usual business under a new marketing regime. There had already been expansion and there was to be further expansion and guess what ...? The VFL clubs all got to discuss and vote on that expansion.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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?

The AFL wasnt a new league created in 1990. Therefore by counting pre-1990 flags seperately definitely denigrates them.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

CURRENT AFL STANDINGS (ACHIEVEMENT LADDER)

1. Eagles
2. Lions
3. Cats
4. Bombers
5. North Melbourne
6. Crows
7. Hawks
8. Swans
   -------------
9. Pies
10. Power
11. Blues
12. Saints
13. Demons
14. Dogs
15. Dockers
16. Tigers

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

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If you take out the VFL flags it makes interstate clubs look strong and the proudest Melbourne clubs look weak.

Seperate VFL flags from AFL flags and StKilda is still bottom of both ladders.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

Seperate VFL flags from AFL flags and StKilda is still bottom of both ladders.

Not true we are 12th out of 16. While not great Pies are only 9th and a stkilda flag in 2010 would see us go ahead of you guys on the AFL ladder.

VFL?? pfft that was a state league plain and simple.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not true we are 12th out of 16. While not great Pies are only 9th and a stkilda flag in 2010 would see us go ahead of you guys on the AFL ladder.

VFL?? pfft that was a state league plain and simple.

One flag in the VFL, equal last
No flags in AFL, equal last

the thread is about premierships since 1897, not lame ladders taking minor premierships anf finals appearances and runners up places into account.

If second place counted for anything Collingwood would be kings of the world.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

One flag in the VFL, equal last
No flags in AFL, equal last

Ah your're a 'flags only thing that matter' guy?? Well that's just boring, and i feel sorry for you.

Saints will win the flag in 2010 and be 8th on the LADDER with collingwood then sitting 10th. Cant wait for that!

 

[stickman11]

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

The difference is, our clubs exist as they did back then

Port Adelaide exists as it always has done in the SANFL, however, port power just a biological offspring, they are not even the magpies. There is a big difference. I am sure a true Port Adelaide supporter would agree rather than a Port Power supporter.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Ah your're a 'flags only thing that matter' guy?? Well that's just boring, and i feel sorry for you.

Thats what the thread's about.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

One flag in the VFL, equal last
No flags in AFL, equal last

the thread is about premierships since 1897, not lame ladders taking minor premierships anf finals appearances and runners up places into account.

If second place counted for anything Collingwood would be kings of the world.

Ok let me explain something SLLLOOOWWWWLY for you. Flags decide the position FIRST but as you know MANY teams have the same amount so how do we differ???? UM MMMAAAAAYYYYBBBBEEEEE seeing how many grand finals they have played then if STILL THE SAME um maybe see who has WON the minor premierships then if STILL they same SEE WHO has made finals more times than if STILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the saaaaaaaaaaaME lets see the w/l RATIO!!!!

****HEAD!

Whatever you reckon but that is the current AFL OVERALL STANDINGS LADDER it is all based on fact so nothing you can say changes it becaue it IIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS listening?? FAAAAAAAACCCCCCCTTTTT!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Well done on that.

Totally usleless to this thread though.

Well done on second place this year, BTW. First side in history iirc to win the first three quarters of a GF and still lose!!!! Stick that stat in your achivement ladder!!!!

 

[Leedawsom]

I thought that the previous flags were always counted but just separated into various relevant groupings. Those who were here in the VFL/AFL and those who were somewhere else. It doesn't make it less important but it does recognize the premier league in the land.

If there were other state leagues who had had the foresight to have wanted to develop into a national league then we would all follow that. But here we are with a history that is recognized and unsurpassed. It is written that those who try to defy the truth will only end up fighting in vane. Well maybe not but I thought it sounded relevant.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Of course he's not a different person, but you've missed the point.

Do you think America considers his win in the year 3 class president election on the same level as his most recent election victory?

No, one has no bearing on them except for those smart enough to recognise that his entire life history got them to where he is today.

Don't try and turn it into a black and white issue as if it's about either acknowledging them or ignoring them.

It's not about restarting the records, it's about acknowledging that VFL flags as simply not as great an achievement as AFL flags.

Open the gate and let them wander in themselves is my motto. 1897-1989 ... 93 seasons of VFL football. Do you think that the flag in 1897 was as great an achievement as the flag in 1989? Was it of a similar high standard? Was there the same level of professionalism? Was administration of the same high standard? I mean, I am sure they did the best with what they had and worked just as hard, but did they have the same technology and know how? One was amateur, one very close to professional as plenty of players played football as their full time job. In fact AFL players today still have outside business interests and jobs amidst their playing commitments. Not a lot different to 20 years ago, except the money is far better today.

The point is there have been many changes along the journey. The replacement rule became the interchange, ruck rules changed, drop kicks phased out, the game continued to evolve. You seem content to consider 93 years of VFL as being able to be put in the one basket in terms of importance when in reality there were far more changes over those 93 years in the VFL than there were by simply expanding the borders to go national.

And just who are you trying to prove this point about importance of flags to anyway? Big noting internet posters who point to their club's trophy cabinets? It is really what is boils down to. 'We don't like supporters of VFL clubs using ancient flags to claim superiority because our clubs weren't around to do anything about it.'

Every single flag since 1897 has been important and every single flag since 1897 will diminish in importance as time goes on. Try telling a West Sydney fan that West Coast are better because they have 3 AFL flags if West Sydney win a flag before the Eagles get a 4th.

You are catering for the lowest common denominator. Those that are two ignorant to work out who is strong and who is not, who has been around longer or not, or worse still, you are catering to Bay 13 posters who know what the truth is and only use these things to bait you. Boy, do you guys take the bait.

If the VFL was a national competition and the champions of the VFL were national champions instead of Victorian champions, then they should be regarded on the same level. But that wasn't the case - that VFL premiers were not Australian champions is a historical fact. You can't change that.

It has nothing to do with being regarded on the same level. Most things are not regarded on the same level over time. Who is doing this regarding that concerns you so much?

Here is a home truth for you:

Australian Open Tennis winners dating back to 1905. As recently as 1976, Mark Edmondson won a grand slam title with roughtly two thirds of the field made up of Australians. Many of the world's top tennis stars did not make the trip. But Australia did run the tournament as they did every year and they did get a winner. Edmondson is considered a grand slam singles winner.
http://australian.open-tennis.com/winners.php

We recognise that Edmondson was not quite at a grand slam level and that his best tennis is not as good as those that followed ... Wilander, Edberg, Becker etc or those that preceded him in most cases. Edmondson and Jimmy Connors both have 1 Australian Open each. Do we think they were of equal ability? I don't think so. The discerning tennis fan knows that Connors did not come out here very often at his peak, and that Edmondson got a relatively softer run to a grand slam.

How about Olympic Medallists? In 1908 Charles Daniels won the 100m Freestyle Gold Medal in a time of 1:05.6. In 1956 John Hernicks won it is world record time of 55.4 seconds. In 2004 Pieter Van den Hoogenband won it in 48.17 seconds. Seems in those two 48 year periods, the progress was roughly the same but overall over nearly a century, the collective progress was significant.

Nonetheless Daniels is counted alongside van den Hoogenband as an Olympic 100m Gold Medal Winner. One of a significantly higher quality, zero division required.

I note you didn't address the question, so i'll ask it again.

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?

Not at all, no more than it is now anyway. The whole issue is that is wasn't a new league and if it was, you would find the VFL would probably still exist in its former guise albeit weakened, with teams like Fitzroy running around at a higher level than they are now, and probably only 4-5 Victorian teams in the AFL.

It didn't happen that way. Preserving the truth is paramount, not appeasing the insecure.

If they announced they were going to cease the current competition, and give it a new start date in the future, I would have no problem separating the period from 1897 until that date in terms of record keeping. It would be factually correct. I separate 1864 to 1896 and Carlton won a few flags in that time too.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

There are VFL premierships.

There are VFL/AFL premierships.

And there are AFL premierships.

You have to rate an AFL premiership over a VFL premiership.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

There are VFL premierships.

There are VFL/AFL premierships.

And there are AFL premierships.

You have to rate an AFL premiership over a VFL premiership.

Well not exactly but I get the point. I rate Hawthorn's 1989 flag over Collingwood's 1990 flag and there would be other examples too. You can rate modern day flags over flags branded with VFL without dividing the records in two. It works for almost every other evolving sport in the world. I gave a couple of examples above.

What you don't do is divide ongoing events/competitions into an arbitrary date where you believe there was a change in quality, so that ignorant people don't go using them for equal bragging rights. Let real sports fans be the discerning ones because the ignorant can't be helped.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Well not exactly but I get the point. I rate Hawthorn's 1989 flag over Collingwood's 1990 flag and there would be other examples too. You can rate modern day flags over flags branded with VFL without dividing the records in two. It works for almost every other evolving sport in the world. I gave a couple of examples above.

What you don't do is divide ongoing events/competitions into an arbitrary date where you believe there was a change in quality, so that ignorant people don't go using them for equal bragging rights. Let real sports fans be the discerning ones because the ignorant can't be helped.

The 1982 to 1989 premierships (inclusive) are the / premierships. Can be argued either way.

The AFL was gazzetted in 1990. Flags since then can't be argued as VFL. Ones prior to 1982 can't be argued as AFL.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The 1982 to 1989 premierships (inclusive) are the / premierships. Can be argued either way.

The AFL was gazzetted in 1990. Flags since then can't be argued as VFL.

Ah no, the flags from 1897 are the / premierships signifying a continuation of the same competition under different names.

You are right, flags since 1990 can not be called VFL flags, and they will not really be referred to as VFL/AFL flags. Those preceding 1990 are referred to as VFL/AFL flags so as to connect them to the ongoing competition.

I like how you assume the only argument here worth arguing is the shift interstate as though it is the be all and end all of the discussion. / does not mean 'can be argued either way' in this instance.

I'd liken it to Footscray/Western Bulldogs, South Melbourne/Sydney Swans, Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, meaning the same entity known under different names.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

I'd liken it to Footscray/Western Bulldogs, South Melbourne/Sydney Swans, Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, meaning the same entity known under different names.

Think we all do except we recognize that a name change either changes the entity or is a recognition that the entity has changed.