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

[Leedawsom]

I state again that it is not about the 'other' leagues being not as good.

They just didn't hitch their band of merry teams to the wagon of expansion and so what they claim as achievements rank just that little bit outside of the VFL/AFL.

Never said they were not as good or the players weren't as good. It has nothing to do with that.

I don't claim niceness quite as much to someone who calls "Victards' either. So run that up yer flag and smoke it.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

Small man syndrome. All clubs started from nothing and some were able to grow into strong clubs, others not. Much like companies today, they grow to a point of strength. Let me ask you, do think communist state owned enterprises have earned their profits more than companies that compete in an open market?

Take a look at this make-believe AFL premiership table... so heavily influenced by AFL assistance; from Brisbane's merger/concession to WCE, Adelaide and Port's start up concessions. Of course there are good reasons for these interventions, but in the cold hard light of day, are those flags really more valuable? Often people quote the salary cap and draft as reasons why they are, but examples abound of premierships won on the back of these innovations being compromised.

This is true. Is brisbanes concessions and more salary cap premierships any less cheating thans carltons/collingwoods buying players etc. etc.

This is a hard one ... I agree but then i cant help thinking is fair teams post 1990... have to climb a ladder started in 1897?? Afterall they are joing the afl NOT VFL.... why not just have 2 ladders - one VFL one AFL and recognise the premierships as VFL or AFL - VFL is still recognised as the best comp of its time (most years).... My other problem is when the balance is swayed in interstae teams... how can the VFL then be included in AFL?? Too many Q's too many disgruntles just make AFL ladder from 1990 FFS!

 

[Rosstickle]

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??

The is one of the most ******ed sentences I've read but the answer is yes. It would be fair.

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?

Carlton have won 8 since 1968. My Carlton supporting Grandma has been alive to see her team win 11 premierships. Many people do care.

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 ALL existing VFL teams.

Every team that competed in the 1989 VFL competed in the 1990 AFL. There were 22 rounds. 4 points were awarded for a win. The finals system was the same.

You're the one that needs the special bus and anyone with a brain is just shaking their head at you.

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

Except Collingwood didn't come begging to play in the SANFL or WAFL. Collingwood don't care about the SANFL or WAFL and hence only want their flags to count in the VFL/AFL.

 

[Rosstickle]

This is true. Is brisbanes concessions and more salary cap premierships any less cheating thans carltons/collingwoods buying players etc. etc.

This is a hard one ... I agree but then i cant help thinking is fair teams post 1990... have to climb a ladder started in 1897?? Afterall they are joing the afl NOT VFL.... why not just have 2 ladders - one VFL one AFL and recognise the premierships as VFL or AFL - VFL is still recognised as the best comp of its time (most years).... My other problem is when the balance is swayed in interstae teams... how can the VFL then be included in AFL?? Too many Q's too many disgruntles just make AFL ladder from 1990 FFS!

It's a continuous league. The only difference was a name change. Should we forget Captain Cook landing on Australia because it was called New Holland?

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

Um you wouldn't be saying that cause the tigers are last on the AFL ladder would you???



I dont think its fair post 1990 teams joining AFL to have to climb a VFL ladder. Nothing wrong with VFL flags all part of VFL clubs history. The only reason AFL have VFL/AFL is to have this great 100 years of exitence BS - dont fall for that stuff.

 

[mess]

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?

Haha, no! Whatever could've given you that idea I've no idea...
In fact if you concentrate and read my post again I'm pretty sure you'll find yourself capable of realising I said the exact opposite of that. The exact opposite.
I'm saying The VFL is the AFL. They are not different. It's one continuous line. They are not a step below, they are merely a step behind. It's called the past, and there'd be no present without it.

That's just waffle.



More waffle.

Hahaha, and there's you only a couple of posts ago acting like everyone else was ignorant and pigheaded.

 

[MightyHawks]

To all those people who think that 1990 is the first year that we should count flags from...

The most obvious question is why aren't you counting the 1989 premiership?

I struggle to see how the 1987, 1988 and 1989 flags are any different to the 1990 flag.

You could look at 1982 onwards as the time that the competition went national.

1987 would be probably the defining moment of the comp - Introduction of Eagles and Bears, National Draft had just been established, VFL working on TV rights deals.

Do we not count the Eagles 1994 win because Port and Freo weren't around yet?

Do we just go back to zero every time a new team enters the comp?

 

[MightyHawks]

What if we add a NZ team in the future...

Should the rebranded ANZFL ignore all premierships won under the "AFL" banner?

 

[Rob]

Haha, no! Whatever could've given you that idea I've no idea...
In fact if you concentrate and read my post again I'm pretty sure you'll find yourself capable of realising I said the exact opposite of that. The exact opposite.
I'm saying The VFL is the AFL. They are not different. It's one continuous line. They are not a step below, they are merely a step behind. It's called the past, and there'd be no present without it.

That's fine - if you think a state based regional league is the same level as a national league then there's no point arguing about it.

We both need to get past that one fundamental issue to even have a debate. Until then we'd just be debating 2 different things.

Hahaha, and there's you only a couple of posts ago acting like everyone else was ignorant and pigheaded.

No, I can just see through bullshit.

 

[Jade]

What utter crap this thread is.

For crying out loud, where are the mods for this thread?

Seriously, the AFL is NEVER changing it's start date from 1897, so why the mods have let this thread go on and on with tool after tool is beyond me.

MODS - Please end this thread for christ sake.

 

[HugeJohnson]

Argue all you want about it, as far as I see it, my club has won 35 premierships and no one can really tell me not to count them can they? Everyone sees it differently and there is no right or wrong.

 

[mess]

That's fine - if you think a state based regional league is the same level as a national league then there's no point arguing about it.

Not at all. It was a superleague of the best teams from the best regional comp in the country, who quickly became professional/competitive enough to scout from the regional leagues. This naturally meant that the best players in the country were far, far more commonly playing in the VFL than anywhere else right from the leagues inception.
It has always been the number 1 league in the land, and it still is. There is no demarcation point significant enough to supercede the VFL's creation as the AFL's official birthdate.

Hope that wasn't too waffly, I feel it's pretty hard not to waffle when forced to articulate such obvious truths as these. Try answering a kid asking "Why is the sky blue?" on the spot and not waffle a little...

We both need to get past that one fundamental issue to even have a debate. Until then we'd just be debating 2 different things.

No we aren't.
You just don't want to accept the truth. Do as you please, the truth won't change.

No, I can just see through bullshit.

No you can't, but to be fair it does seem to be mostly behind your eyes so that'd make it a bit tough I guess.

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

this discussion is over.
VFL 1897 - 1989, AFL 1990+

Clubs still have their history of course. eg

This is HOW it should read! For example ...

Collingwood Football Club
1897 -1989 VFL - 13 VFL FLAGS (3rd best overall)
1990 -Current - 1 AFL FLAG (currently 9th best overall)

ok? done and done!

 

[mess]

this discussion is over.
VFL/AFL 1897 - present.

Fixed.

 

[PortBrillance]

Argue all you want about it, as far as I see it, my club has won 35 premierships and no one can really tell me not to count them can they? Everyone sees it differently and there is no right or wrong.

Wonderful Post. 35 > 16

 

[SAINTS 2010 2011]

Fixed.

no VFL died 1989.

VFL flags are not AFL flags

 

[mess]

no VFL died 1989.

No it didn't. It just changed it's name by deed poll.

VFL flags are not AFL flags

A rose by any other name...

 

[mess]

Wonderful Post. 35 > 16

His post is alright but you certainly made a hash of yours with that "35>16" nonsense.

16

's >
35

's.

 

[PortBrillance]

Well a VFL premiership isnt worth .25 of an SANFL premiership. At the least its .75 if you HAVE to compare them. Even 0.5 we are still ahead

 

[mess]

Well a VFL premiership isnt worth .25 of an SANFL premiership.

You're right. An SANFL premiership is worth .25 of a VFL premiership. .5 at most is fair, but it's really a fluctuating value and .5 would probably be a pretty rare height.

 

[estibador]

What utter crap this thread is.

For crying out loud, where are the mods for this thread?

Seriously, the AFL is NEVER changing it's start date from 1897, so why the mods have let this thread go on and on with tool after tool is beyond me.

MODS - Please end this thread for christ sake.

So the mods should close any thread that doesn't agree with your POV? What a fun place bigfooty would be if you were in charge Mein Fuhrer.

Here's an idea, instead of crying to the mods if you don't like a thread just don't read it.

 

[Rob]

Not at all. It was a superleague of the best teams from the best regional comp in the country, who quickly became professional/competitive enough to scout from the regional leagues. This naturally meant that the best players in the country were far, far more commonly playing in the VFL than anywhere else right from the leagues inception.

You're looking at history with far too much parochialism.

It's pretty clear that the VFL premiers were never anything more than champions of Victoria - that's why events like champions of Australia existed. And why state footy was far more important - that was the highest level.

It has always been the number 1 league in the land, and it still is.

Knock it off, it wasn't all that uncommon for VFL teams to get rolled by SANFL and WAFL clubs - especially when they had to travel. Even as late as the 80's, when the VFL used to send teams over to Perth for the pre season, it wasn't unusual for them to get beaten. It was probably fair to say that 2 or 3 years out of 10 from the 1890's to the 1970's, the best team in Australia wasn't even Victorian.

Nowadays if you pit an AFL side up against any other team in the country they'd win by 20 goals - and that's if the AFL side had their best dozen players out and they were on the piss the previous night. Otherwise they'd win by 40 goals.

It is unthinkable that you wouldn't acknowledge this.

There is no demarcation point significant enough to supercede the VFL's creation as the AFL's official birthdate.

I actually agree with this, but my point still stands. You don't simply refuse to acknowledge changes in reality simply because it didn't happen on one day.

Hope that wasn't too waffly, I feel it's pretty hard not to waffle when forced to articulate such obvious truths as these. Try answering a kid asking "Why is the sky blue?" on the spot and not waffle a little...

And 'why are the champions of Victoria not the same as champions of Australia?' without sounding like a parochial know it all?

Fair dinkum, it's like talking to Americans about their 'world champions'.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

It's a completely valid point. The game won't be the same in 80 years. Do you think the game will stagnate and not improve? The same as teams from the 1980s look back at the 1900s and realise there is little in common, so to will teams from the 2080s.

I did note that you fail to raise an argument, just take pot shots with no ammunition. Your lightweight attempts to participate are dragging the thread down. Lift your game.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

no VFL died 1989.

VFL flags are not AFL flags

And those on your side of the argument will probably be saying 'please stop helping' with assertions like this.

 

[exe ex machina]

The most important change in VFL to AFL flags/comp is the national draft, and how the AFL has total access to every single player around the nation.

In pre-AFL days, before the draft that started in the mid 1980's, under the banner of the VFL, that pre-draft VFL era was very different. The VFL pilfered players more and more, starting from about the 1950's, small at first, but increasing every decade after, really hitting its straps in the mid-70's. Even back in the 1930's or even before that, players used to be like freelancers moving interstate to play for clubs in the VFL, WAFL, TFL, etc for some extra income and a different experience/training purposes.

But from the the late 1800's right thru to about the early 1970's, SANFL/WAFL and VFL were a lot closer. The further back from the early 70's, the more equal they were. About the early 1970's when the different level of standard started to increase --- purely tho because of the interstate players leaving to play in the VFL. If they had stayed, all those players in those sanfl/wafl teams versus pure VFL teams of Victorians, the comps would've remained very equal.

So...while the AFL is just the VFL re-branded, the change really started to come about in the mid-80's (draft) that you could say there's a big difference between the VFL flags/comp and the AFL comp. Why eventually it's probably true and probably important that one day they WILL mainly focus on AFL flags.

Especially as more and more non-Victorian teams enter, and Victorian teams merge/die, then you'll get more push to become truly national and recognized as a truly national comp by keeping game/season records and flags won strictly to the "AFL" banner.