Colin Carter – Football’s Forgotten Years

[Gibbsy]

Has anyone else on here read Colin Carter’s recently published book centred around reclaiming the period between 1870 and 1896?

I never used to place much credence in his arguments for modifying the premiership tally (my view was generally that the VFL was a separate, breakaway competition to the VFA) but Carter makes some compelling arguments backed up by myriad fellow historians and countless primary sources throughout the five decades from 1870 onwards.

It appears that the political disagreements between the league and association is the deciding factor behind why 1897 came to be known as “year one” by the mid-1920s, after 1870 was previously accepted as “year one” up to that point.

I am now a Carter convert, and would love to see the official records updated to serve this history.

While discussions have continued aplenty on this site about the worth of Carter’s arguments and submissions, none yet seem to have been started about his recent print publication – which I purchased the other week at Dymocks for $30.

Your thoughts, if you’ve read it?

 

[blueycarlton]

Carlton acknowledged their pre VFL premierships. I have seen photos of life member certificates from the early 20th century and the pre VFL premiership years were printed on the left and the VFL ones were on the right. Probably got told by the VFL to only display 1897 onwards.

 

[Supermercado]

I can't comment on the book itself, but I'd reluctantly accept VFA premierships being counted in the 'senior premiership' tally as long as they were clearly separated from VFL (e.g. the team has won 11 senior premierships - 2 in the VFA, 9 in the VFL. And in this case Port can have all their SANFL flags in the official tally too) but it's silly to try and include the pre-VFA competitions.

The first year he wants to include is 1870 - a year where Melbourne 'won' the Challenge Cup on walkover because holders Albert Park wouldn't show up as previous holders South Yarra disputed their claim because one of their games had been a walkover against the Hobson's Bay Railway team. When Albert Park didn't play the rematch scheduled three weeks later Carlton stepped in, Melbourne beat them and 'won' the cup. My only interest in the book would be to see how he'd justify this half-arse local competition being counted as a senior premiership.

 

[SpiritOfCarlton]

I've read the book and agree with it's arguments.

The book is repetitive, but to be expected.

However the basic argument is that there was a strong competition from 1870 onwards directly comparable to the breakaway in 1897.

This history was acknowledged broadly until about the 1920s when it was in the VFL's interests to distance itself as much as possible from the VFA which is when the whitewashing of history began.

There should be some sort of official acknowledgement. It only enhances the prestige of the league.

 

[Aut Vincere Aut Mori]

I have also read the book and agree with Colin's arguments. I don't think it has anything to do with adding premierships and clubs leapfrogging others in the premiership listings. Nor is it an attempt by the AFL/VFL to assume the VFA history when it spent much of its life trying (and eventually successfully) destroying it as an opposition organization. People who oppose Colin's arguments have no historical understanding of the history of the pre VFL landscape in the state of Victoria. They should take the time to read Mark Penning's brilliant five volume 'Origins of Australian Football: Victoria's Early History' to understand the pre 1897 story of the game in Victoria. The VFL clubs of the breakaway all claimed their VFA Premierships as premierships on Annual Reports and Club stationary. I attach two such examples from the South Melbourne Club. Hope you can make out the detail that clearly shows the club claiming Premierships and Runners Up from its VFA years.
I agree the book was repetitive but had to be to make his point. The 1920's coincided with the VFL and VFA attempting to garner influence over the whole running of the game in the state and this may have been the reason why the VFA premierships disappeared from the publications of Clubs.
I also think that the VFL breakaway clubs in 1897 considered themselves to be the linear continuation of the VFA.
I also agree with a previous post about claiming pre 1877 premierships as legitimate. I think any premierships from 1877 (VFA foundation year) as legitimate but anything prior to this as having suspect legitimacy.

 

[Gibbke]

Reading this now, and I'm not buying it! He's making a very repetitive point with some fatal flaws...

It kind of revolves around a picture of the VFL record showing premiers up to 1911 on p.36. It shows an unbroken list from 1870 to 1911 which makes no distinction of change in 1896-97, but starts a separate list of Association premiers from 1897. This and many quotes from papers of the time grouping club flags before and after, or clubs stating they'd won their first premiership since 1890, that sort of thing, are his argument - it's all about statements from the time, along with one of his own where he says the 1992 Premier League started with a savage breakaway...will have to research that one...

I call bullshit.

1) That p.36 premiers list specifically names the eight VFL teams and says in 1896 they ceded from the Association. He describes a lot from this list, but never mentions that bit!
2) The non-VFL teams didn't make a dent before 1897. No flags, a single RU in 1870, and four third place finishes from teams that played in the VFA after 1896. The list for all intents and purposes really does look like the same comp running through...
3) At no stage does any source so far in the book say it's the same comp...it's all Carter...
4) The list is entitled Premiership Lists...VFL appears nowhere...there is no acknowledgment, as in (3), that it's the same comp...

On p.37, Carlton's annual report says "after a lapse of 19 years, the club attained the highest possible honours by winning the League premiership". Carter maintains this states an attitude where they consider it all to be the same comp, but what's actually being said is the exact wording - the team has won the "highest possible honours". In 1887 the Association was the only comp, and in 1906 the VFL sides were considered the best because the best teams left the VFA in 1896.

What would Williamstown, Port Melbourne and Hotham call their pre-VFL era flags? Who knows - none of them won any! You'd be thinking however they started their histories way back into that era...

I'm thinking the clubs and writers of the time lumped the flags together simply because those pre-VFL flags were fresh in the mind, and since they were dominated by teams who kept playing each other in the new comp, the list looked more coherent. I barrack for South Launceston, who won a TSL premiership in 2013 before joining a new league and winning a few more...I look at them all as SLFC flags, but I don't go saying the NTFA ones were the same as the TSL...! Once those memories faded, and the VFA was a serious rival (in 1897, it wasn't), and space started disappearing to list all the winners, the old VFA info was rejected, and the 1897 start date dominated. Carter says it was the same comp because of the convenience of lumping them together, but I say it wasn't - the absence of anyone actually saying those words from the era is a tacit acknowledgment that the teams knew they were playing under a new administration...

 

[blueycarlton]

I haven't read Carters book.
But from my research of Carlton's early years, it seems the club just continued on in 1897 playing the 7 other breakaway teams that they had played with prior.
VFA premierships were listed along side VFL ones on Carlton Life Membership Certificates that I have seen, at least into the 1920s.
What should be acknowledged is the games players have played for their club.
Some players are listed as playing a handful of games when they actually played many more for the club in the VFA prior to 1897.
Peter Williams (Carlton) for example played 94 games before 1897 and 34 in VFL.
Premierships prior to 1897 should be acknowledged by clubs, if they want to.
As a youngster I thought football had started in 1897 and was amazed when as a 10 year old I was loaned a copy of the Carlton Story (1958) that had all this extra amazing history going back to 1864.
Clubs should be proud of their histories and acknowledge their role in establishing the world's first code of football.

 

[Supermercado]

I haven't read Carters book.
But from my research of Carlton's early years, it seems the club just continued on in 1897 playing the 7 other breakaway teams that they had played with prior.
VFA premierships were listed along side VFL ones on Carlton Life Membership Certificates that I have seen, at least into the 1920s.
What should be acknowledged is the games players have played for their club.
Some players are listed as playing a handful of games when they actually played many more for the club in the VFA prior to 1897.
Peter Williams (Carlton) for example played 94 games before 1897 and 34 in VFL.
Premierships prior to 1897 should be acknowledged by clubs, if they want to.
As a youngster I thought football had started in 1897 and was amazed when as a 10 year old I was loaned a copy of the Carlton Story (1958) that had all this extra amazing history going back to 1864.
Clubs should be proud of their histories and acknowledge their role in establishing the world's first code of football.

Agree that pre-1897 VFA games/goals should be noted on player records (albeit separately), but the problem is getting confirmed lineups and totals. Even for all the good work done by Mark Pennings in his books, I still don't have the confirmed name of every 1896 MFC player let alone the years before that. It's something I'd like to work on when I've got time in the future, but for now there's still a shedload of unknowns (shown at the bottom of this page if anyone can help) to tick off.

 

[rapidfire7]

Probably the greatest book ever written.

I heard on SEN a few days ago (via Sam Edmund), that the club Presidents were about to meet again to discuss Carter's proposal

Only a matter of time now until history is finally corrected.

 

[Gibbsy]

Probably the greatest book ever written.

I heard on SEN a few days ago (via Sam Edmund), that the club Presidents were about to meet again to discuss Carter's proposal

Only a matter of time now until history is finally corrected.

I think I’m more in favour than not, but that’s a very strong assertion. What about the book makes it so good for you?

 

[Cyclops]

I have briefly glanced at Carters book.

It's trash. The writing is barely coherent. The argumentation is flawed, and lacks logic or consistency. The use of sources is best described as "creative".

It's not a work of history, and as polemic it fails.

The problems start with the title, "The Forgotten Years". The VFA hasn't been forgotten. It's a false starting point and the work doesn't improve.

1/10 at least some pages have correct spelling.