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

[ghostbat12]

you can keep your VFL premoierships, noone is asking for u to give them up. however none of those (except the ones won between 1987 and 1990) have been won in any form of a national competition. thats it. doesnt mean VFL premierships are shite. far from it.

as for honour of joining a league, i think a competition of interstate clubs devoid of some vic clubs would do nicely for itself.

 

[Rosstickle]

you can keep your VFL premoierships, noone is asking for u to give them up. however none of those (except the ones won between 1987 and 1990) have been won in any form of a national competition. thats it. doesnt mean VFL premierships are shite. far from it.

as for honour of joining a league, i think a competition of interstate clubs devoid of some vic clubs would do nicely for itself.

South Melbourne moved to Sydney in 82/83 (i forget which). That is somewhat national.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Its amazing how changing the name of something makes it a totally new thing with no history at all. So easy to do - its a wonder more criminals don't try this tactic...

The name was change because the existing name was incongruous.

Your name change examples are irrelevant to this situtaion.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Not sure how much officially has got to do with it. They are different competitions. You are being silly aren't you. The original VFL morphed into the AFL. The same as the VFA morphed into what we now know as the VFL.

Have you even read the history of the AFL? The VFA did not morph into the VFL. Half of the clubs were disillusioned and formed a breakaway competition. The VFA and the VFL ran parallel to each other for many years with only slight differences in standard. The VFL gradually became the higher standard competition and VFA players would jump across to the better competition. Eventually the VFA was just a second tier feeder competition.

The VFL did morph into the AFL pretty much and they did so by virtue of their own vision and quality. An entity called the AFL didn't just come along and swallow the VFL up.

Marketing is not analogous with a football league. A football league represents a geographical area. It what it does. A saleable product represents a need in a market. You should be able to see that everytime you draw on an analogy you are out of ways to say the Victoria is Australia.

Stop putting words into my mouth in order to hide the frailty of your argument. I never said Victoria is Australia. I said the expaned VFL became the AFL. The fact that they were sensitive enough not to retain the V and disrespect their interstate teams should not be held against them.

Seriously ODN, if it was still the Victorian Football League, it would still be called the Victorian Football League.

It isn't still the VFL. It is the AFL. The competition has been in existence since 1897. They changed their name in 1990.

I got married 5 weeks ago. My wife has changed her name. She is a different person in that she now has a husband, a step daughter and family responsibilities. This has changed her outlook and expanded her horizons. We share our money and we have legal responsibilities for each other. Is my wife a new entity that is 5 weeks old?

You can keep calling me silly, an ostrich or whatever you like. I understand it to be a lack of depth in your argument. You probably fancy yourself as someone who can argue, someone who will never be proven wrong. Many of us have been there.

One one side, we have official AFL history, we have no evidence of the VFL winding up and a new AFL competition beginning, we have numerous examples of name changes not affecting how history is recorded in other sporting competitions, in business and in life. We have examples of expansion across state borders and international markets not affecting how history is recorded. We have examples of vast changes in a sporting competition over its life prior to expansion.

On the other hand, you have an opinion that expansion across state borders equals higher quality, greater professionalism and therefore a competition barely recognisable from its former self, so it surely must be considered separate in every respect.

One side seems stronger than the other. I realise you can never influence free will and if you believe something, nobody can tell you otherwise. I am fine with that. However, rather than believing what you want to believe, these threads pop up whereby people want to pretend that what is ... isn't. Then when they are corrected, you get a chorus of calls about supporters of clubs wanting to hold on to their lesser premierships.

When was the last time somebody started a thread just to remind others where the AFL's roots are, of what history says? I can't remember.

You get insecure assertions about unfair bragging rights, you get a rebuttal and then you get further assertions of Vic-centric arrogance. Guess what, I wasn't born in Victoria and I probably lived there for a total of less than 2 years of my life. I have no particular love for Victoria or Victorians. However, I'm not big on revisionists rewriting things to suit themselves and then ignoring three quarters of the arguments that they don't have a response for.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The name was change because the existing name was incongruous.

Your name change examples are irrelevant to this situtaion.

I'd say Cassius Clay's name was incongruous to him, being the name of his ancestors former slavemaster, and being that he just joined the Nation of Islam where changing your name was expected.

You could even argue in certain situations that a maiden name is incongruous once a woman is married, depending on whether there are kids involved or not and on how the woman herself feels about the name.

Certainly Cassius Clay is a fantastic human example of what you are talking about.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

Answer me this people .. is it fair for Gold coast to come in and climb a ladder started in 1897 in the state of victoria which was only for victorian teams until 1990 - with a view of intertstate teams from 1982??? Is that fair?? HELL NO hence why 1990 is the beginning of the AFL.

It is fair they must climb the AFL ladder because they are entering the AFL. They are not entering the VFL get it??

VFLflag is certainly no AFL flag! They should be recognised as seperate things - AFL have got to get their **** together! I mean they dont even have Fitzroys record represented at ALL!! Whats with that??

 

[PortBrillance]

I admire your passion for this topic, dark navy blues. As long as you give credit to the PA for being such an amazing club then I fully respect you

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I admire your passion for this topic, dark navy blues. As long as you give credit to the PA for being such an amazing club then I fully respect you

Well I understand their history and understand the frustrations they feel when they are considered a new club and not the club that has been around since 1870. PAMFC are the new club but people are shortsighted or ignorant when it comes to this issue.

It is funny because in some ways it would suit Port fans more to have the AFL be a completely separate entity to the VFL and avoid being considered a small fish in a big pond when faced with the weight of 113 seasons of VFL/AFL competition. But on the other hand, Port fans more than anybody can understand the frustration of people trying to rewrite their history to rob them off something near and dear to them.

I was nominally a Glenelg supporter and as a Collingwood enemy, I was never a fan of Port Adelaide due to the colours and the Magpies thing, but that is more a matter of respect than anything. I understand that Port cast its shadow over the SANFL more than any team have over their respective competitions.

 

[PortBrillance]

Well I understand their history and understand the frustrations they feel when they are considered a new club and not the club that has been around since 1870. PAMFC are the new club but people are shortsighted or ignorant when it comes to this issue.

It is funny because in some ways it would suit Port fans more to have the AFL be a completely separate entity to the VFL and avoid being considered a small fish in a big pond when faced with the weight of 113 seasons of VFL/AFL competition. But on the other hand, Port fans more than anybody can understand the frustration of people trying to rewrite their history to rob them off something near and dear to them.

I was nominally a Glenelg supporter and as a Collingwood enemy, I was never a fan of Port Adelaide due to the colours and the Magpies thing, but that is more a matter of respect than anything. I understand that Port cast its shadow over the SANFL more than any team have over their respective competitions.

Top post

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Have you even read the history of the AFL? The VFA did not morph into the VFL. Half of the clubs were disillusioned and formed a breakaway competition. The VFA and the VFL ran parallel to each other for many years with only slight differences in standard. The VFL gradually became the higher standard competition and VFA players would jump across to the better competition. Eventually the VFA was just a second tier feeder competition.

Port Melbourne, Coburg, Sandringham etc palyed in the VFA. The VFA no longer exists. Those clubs now play in a league called the VFL.

The VFL did morph into the AFL pretty much and they did so by virtue of their own vision and quality. An entity called the AFL didn't just come along and swallow the VFL up.

Who said it did.

Stop putting words into my mouth in order to hide the frailty of your argument. I never said Victoria is Australia. I said the expaned VFL became the AFL. The fact that they were sensitive enough not to retain the V and disrespect their interstate teams should not be held against them.

The basis of your perfect continuity theory is that Victoria is Australia. If there was a perfect continuity the 'sensitive' need to change the name would have not have arisen.

It isn't still the VFL. It is the AFL. The competition has been in existence since 1897. They changed their name in 1990.

That's pretty much my original post in this thread. Except I have due recognition of why the name was changed. Previously the competition had encompassed a state. It now encompasses the major part of a federal entity. Like to see a Tassie team get up, incidentally.

I got married 5 weeks ago. My wife has changed her name. She is a different person in that she now has a husband, a step daughter and family responsibilities. This has changed her outlook and expanded her horizons. We share our money and we have legal responsibilities for each other. Is my wife a new entity that is 5 weeks old?

You seem to answer your question with the outlining of the situation. Yes she is. I wish you and her well.

You can keep calling me silly, an ostrich or whatever you like. I understand it to be a lack of depth in your argument. You probably fancy yourself as someone who can argue, someone who will never be proven wrong. Many of us have been there.

Ah the internet. Just not to sure where you are at. Put it this way. I have a brother who barracks for Carlton.

One one side, we have official AFL history, we have no evidence of the VFL winding up and a new AFL competition beginning,

What? You post as if AFL history reaches back to 1897. Your point is the VFL comission voted themselves to be the AFL comission. Therefore there is a perfect continuity from VFL to AFL. A vote for change, though, is the change.

we have numerous examples of name changes not affecting how history is recorded in other sporting competitions, in business and in life. We have examples of expansion across state borders and international markets not affecting how history is recorded. We have examples of vast changes in a sporting competition over its life prior to expansion.

I feel your soul. You love the Victorian origin of aussie rules. But the game is and has been for a long time, bigger than Victoria.

n the other hand, you have an opinion that expansion across state borders equals higher quality, greater professionalism and therefore a competition barely recognisable from its former self, so it surely must be considered separate in every respect.

Look, old son. I am Essendon supporter. I just know that Essendon now plays in a national league.

When was the last time somebody started a thread just to remind others where the AFL's roots are, of what history says? I can't remember.

Don't know about threads but I took a load of barley to Moyston on Wednesday and reflected on these sorts of things. If you are into the history of the game you will know what I am getting at.

You get insecure assertions about unfair bragging rights, you get a rebuttal and then you get further assertions of Vic-centric arrogance. Guess what, I wasn't born in Victoria and I probably lived there for a total of less than 2 years of my life. I have no particular love for Victoria or Victorians. However, I'm not big on revisionists rewriting things to suit themselves and then ignoring three quarters of the arguments that they don't have a response for.

Where is the rewriting? A one state league became a national league.

Amyway, wish you well. You don't seem like a bad bloke.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Amyway, wish you well. You don't seem like a bad bloke.

Aside from when I sleep with a 5 week old, I assume.

 

[Spluff]

I tell you what, the two VFA-VFL changes make debating this a huge pain in the ass.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I tell you what, the two VFA-VFL changes make debating this a huge pain in the ass.

It does. Much the same as still having a Port side in the SANFL makes it a pain in the ass for the Port Power fans trying to explain their history.

However the VFA did wind up in a fashion and have a clear changeover to the VFL with the AFL having more input and two new teams being brought in that year. It wasn't a case of the VFA furthering themselves, it was a case of selling a piece of themselves and becoming an official reserves competition for the AFL. A merger of sorts if you like. Still the VFA club histories reflect their flags as a continuing thing from 1877 and they have more reason to consider themselves a separate competition than the VFL/AFL do.

 

[erical]

The AFL began in 1990 so records should only be claimed from there on .
Anyway who cares if Carlton or Essendon have 13 VFL premierships?Most were won way back in the dark ages when it was only a State based competition.
Does this make them a better club than West Coast or Brisbane who have amassed 3 flags in 23 years in the comp?
Even Port Adelaides supporters continually belting on how we have won 36 SANFL premierships can be annoying. All that matters to me is who will win the 2010 flag.
Last season is done and dusted and Geelong came out on top .Roll on next season.
It's ok to have history but who really cares?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Just when you take the time to articulate an argument where all of these things are answered, somebody comes along and restates them as though nothing was written beforehand. If that isn't an ignorant approach I have no idea what is.

The AFL began in 1990 so records should only be claimed from there on .

The VFL changed their name in 1990, the AFL did not begin in 1990.

Anyway who cares if Carlton or Essendon have 13 VFL premierships?Most were won way back in the dark ages when it was only a State based competition.

And in 80 years, people will be saying that Ports's 2004 flag was irrelevant as the standard had increased significantly since then. Your only claim to relevance will be that it had AFL engraved on it. Believe it or not, when it was still the VFL, people questioned flags from early in the century. Teams had finishing scores of 0.1.1 back then. We did appreciate that they were the pioneering days and that all teams had to play under the same trials and tribulations though, and that they represented continuity in the competition. I guess we had respect.

Does this make them a better club than West Coast or Brisbane who have amassed 3 flags in 23 years in the comp?

No it doesn't and only people trying to bait others or responding to something equally silly tend to use that. You are catering for lightweights if you think that is reason to change history.

Even Port Adelaides supporters continually belting on how we have won 36 SANFL premierships can be annoying.

For the most part, they quote their history to combat those who claim they have none. A lot of people are proud of their history and think that history does not become redundant as soon as it has passed, as all those moments of the past, make up who you are today and who you will be tomorrow.

 

[Wally Carter]

And in 80 years, people will be saying that Ports's 2004 flag was irrelevant as the standard had increased significantly since then.

Do you manage to keep a straight face when you make these ridiculous analogys?

 

[Rob]

It's amazing the number of people that refuse to get it.

I say refuse, because they're deliberately trying to make the argument black and white. Either flags count or they don't. Because it's the same competition, that means they must count. No shades of grey there. To disprove it, you need to show that it's a different league, and you can come up with all sorts of name change analogies that mean you can't.

Which is a great line of argument - if you're producing a story for Today Tonight.

The reality is that the issue isn't whether or not they count at all. It's if they can be put on the same level as AFL flags. Most of the flogs on this thread refuse to acknowledge that issue at all, so there's no point arguing about it.

 

[mess]

The reality is that the issue isn't whether or not they count at all. It's if they can be put on the same level as AFL flags.

And the answer is "yes, yes they can". They were all the highest achievement attainable in the game in each year they were won. The AFL wouldn't be at the standard it's at in 2010 if the VFL weren't of the standard it was at in 1910. It's a continual unbroken line, and the immortality/untouchability of the victories along that line has been the fuel which has driven the competition to it's current point. It's all very black and white.

Most of the flogs on this thread refuse to acknowledge that issue at all, so there's no point arguing about it.

No they don't, it's just one of those things that is so self evident as to make pointing it out seem painfully tedious.

 

[erical]

Just when you take the time to articulate an argument where all of these things are answered, somebody comes along and restates them as though nothing was written beforehand. If that isn't an ignorant approach I have no idea what is.

The VFL changed their name in 1990, the AFL did not begin in 1990.

And in 80 years, people will be saying that Ports's 2004 flag was irrelevant as the standard had increased significantly since then. Your only claim to relevance will be that it had AFL engraved on it. Believe it or not, when it was still the VFL, people questioned flags from early in the century. Teams had finishing scores of 0.1.1 back then. We did appreciate that they were the pioneering days and that all teams had to play under the same trials and tribulations though, and that they represented continuity in the competition. I guess we had respect.

No it doesn't and only people trying to bait others or responding to something equally silly tend to use that. You are catering for lightweights if you think that is reason to change history.

For the most part, they quote their history to combat those who claim they have none. A lot of people are proud of their history and think that history does not become redundant as soon as it has passed, as all those moments of the past, make up who you are today and who you will be tomorrow.

I bet you are a climate change sceptic too?

 

[Rob]

And the answer is "yes, yes they can". They were all the highest achievement attainable in the game in each year they were won.

Fair enough - so you're acknowledging that the level that VFL flags were won is a step below the level that an AFL flag is won?

The AFL wouldn't be at the standard it's at in 2010 if the VFL weren't of the standard it was at in 1910. It's a continual unbroken line, and the immortality/untouchability of the victories along that line has been the fuel which has driven the competition to it's current point. It's all very black and white.

That's just waffle.

No they don't, it's just one of those things that is so self evident as to make pointing it out seem painfully tedious.

More waffle.

 

[Jimthegreat]

VFL hasn't been outright best at all times , so that is a joke. Even if it was better, how much better was it? 10%? 20%? If it was 1% better does that mean you can't count WAFL/SANFL flags the same as VFL? lol.

The only flags that matter are the ones won when the game went truly national. Otherwise VFL=WAFL=SANFL flags. If victards can't see this they are biased, ignorant and likely missing a few braincells.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Sorry, but I had to. You have to have more intelligence than that.

Those teams came into OUR competition. It's the same VFL competition changed to the AFL. Previously players came to the VFL to try their luck because it was the top competition much bigger than SANFL, WANFL etc...don't spin sh1t and try to say otheriwise. Those interstate clubs are playing in the old VFL competition now known as the AFL. I'm sure if your look it up LEGALLY you'll see that. No ifs or buts when it get done to legalities. So the only flag that are won in this competition are the one's that started once as the VFL in 1897. Not in the SANFL or WAFL.

If you can't see that you the one missing a million brain cells. Can't believe people actually argue the point. So stupid! But that's what you get on bigfooty sometimes, people a penny short of a pound trying to argue a ridiculous point.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I bet you are a climate change sceptic too?

ODN is right. Only a dill would say otherwise.

 

[Constructionist]

Any flog that thinks the VFL changed its name to the AFL needs to be put on the special bus. The AFL is a completely new organization that included some existing VFL teams.

 

[Leedawsom]

It's amazing the number of people that refuse to get it.

I say refuse, because they're deliberately trying to make the argument black and white. Either flags count or they don't. Because it's the same competition, that means they must count. No shades of grey there. To disprove it, you need to show that it's a different league, and you can come up with all sorts of name change analogies that mean you can't.

Which is a great line of argument - if you're producing a story for Today Tonight.

The reality is that the issue isn't whether or not they count at all. It's if they can be put on the same level as AFL flags. Most of the flogs on this thread refuse to acknowledge that issue at all, so there's no point arguing about it.

No this is about other leagues namely the WAFL and the SANFL claiming that they don't have any part in claiming their flags as important as the VFL/AFL.

They can claim them all they like but you fail to realise that the ilks of Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn and Collingwood and Richmond, Melbourne and so on etc, didn't play in your sacred competitions.

Beat your head against the wall but have a nurse handy. You are going to need her/him.

 

[Constructionist]

They can claim them all they like but you fail to realise that the ilks of Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn and Collingwood and Richmond, Melbourne and so on etc, didn't play in your sacred competitions.

The same argument could be said about Collingwood not playing Port, or South Fremantle, so wipe away their flags?

There is no non subjective analysis to state the VFL was the "best league" in Australia for every year that it ran. The fact that WA/SA beat the victorians often should be proof enough of this.