Resource List thread - Inaccuracy in official records

[35Daicos]

There seems to be a few issues with some St Kilda line-ups from the early part of 1931.

For the Rd. 7 game against Carlton Fogarty is not named in the official lineup but Hutchesson is, and this seems to be incorrect. From The Age:


This has Hutchesson playing in the Reserves that week: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/205838124

From The Herald has Fogarty and not Hutchesson as well: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/242955596

The Sporting Globe has the same: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/20688200

=============================
For the Rd. 8 game vs. Footscray it seems likely Hindson shouldn't be in the team and Hutchesson should (Sporting Globe): https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/183027089

Statistics even (for both sides)!: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/183027260


The Herald has Hutchesson as well (and not Hindson) in the side: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/26377052

The Age and The Argus don't shed any light on the issue.
===============================
For the Rd. 3 game against Hawthorn it looks like Hindson may have played instead of Hutchesson. The Age names Hindson in the best players.
The Sporting Globe has Hindson playing (and not Hutchesson), and names him among the best:


The Herald has Hindson in the team:

==============================
More to come!

 

[35Daicos]

For St Kilda in their 1931 Rd. 4 clash against South Melbourne The Sporting Globe names Fogarty instead of Hutchesson - the reverse of how it is named in the official lineup:

So does The Herald:

The Age gives Fogarty a mention in the match report, and names Hutchesson in the best players in the Reserves:

========================================
For the Rd. 6 game against Collingwood The Herald names Hindson, who is not in the official lineup, instead of Hutchesson:

It also named Hindson among the Saints best.

The Age names Hindson as having played well.
=============================
While Hindson is named in the official lineup for the Rd. 13 game against Geelong The Herald has Hutchesson in his place.


The Sporting Globe:


===================================
I'm not sure what to make of this at the moment, but there seems to have been a real issue with Hutchesson's name around this time!!

 

[footyfan1978]

Passes to Comrade....lol
How are Champion Data not using this?

 

[35Daicos]

This is what the official records have for the DOB/DOD for Collingwood one-game player George Blundell, but it looks certain they have it wrong:


https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/89730200 (18 June 1907)


The fact that it says he was 27 makes it even more interesting, as he would have been 32 at the time, if the records had the correct DOB.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/200484460


https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/200484461


From Vic BDM:



So, he was born in 1879, not 1874. I can’t find an exact DOB, unfortunately. The headstone can be seen here (but does not give a DOB): https://billiongraves.com/supporting-record/George-Thomas-BLUNDELL/99587171

https://australianfootball.com/players/player/George+Blundell/1521

AFL Tables - George Blundell - Stats - Statistics

afltables.com

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/George_Blundell
https://forever.collingwoodfc.com.au/players/george-blundell/

It seems that what we see in the records is (incorrectly) based on this chap's details:


I have notified the Collingwood history folks of this.

Edit: I've now heard from Collingwood that the AFL's Steve Rodgers "has confirmed that he’s happy to make the change to records." They (AFL) are also hopeful of being able to provide a DOB.

 

[NZ Blue Boy]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/re-writing-of-australian-footballs-history.1040411/

Was scrolling through the Saints being relocated to NZ thread, when i remembered reading about a AF game in 1879 in Wellington NZ, which was the first game played under electric lights in the southern hemisphere, 2.5 months prior to the first night game under electric light at the MCG.

As an Auckland resident myself, this is intriguing. Can you tell me more?
. have a mate who is a NZ historian who would love to know about this...

 

[RedmanWasHere]

In the 2000 AFL yearbook, a book I'd like to find a copy of again, RD's 5 and 9 are missing and replaced by the R1 ladder.

 

[NZ Blue Boy]

In the 2000 AFL yearbook, a book I'd like to find a copy of again, RD's 5 and 9 are missing and replaced by the R1 ladder.

If that is the Official AFL Yearbook for 2000, published by Viking, then in fact Rounds Five and Nine are accurate. Pages 57 and 77.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

If that is the Official AFL Yearbook for 2000, published by Viking, then in fact Rounds Five and Nine are accurate. Pages 57 and 77.

Think it's Viking but can't remember publisher.

IIRC, R1 was:

Essendon.
Collingwood.
West Coast.
Carlton.
Footscray.
Sydney.
Geelong
Richmond.
------------------------
Melbourne.
Fremantle.
St Kilda.
Adelaide.
Brisbane.
Kangaroos.
Hawthorn.
Port Adelaide.


That's the order for RD's 5 and 9 I saw and remember.

 

[NZ Blue Boy]

Think it's Viking but can't remember publisher.

IIRC, R1 was:

Essendon.
Collingwood.
West Coast.
Carlton.
Footscray.
Sydney.
Geelong
Richmond.
------------------------
Melbourne.
Fremantle.
St Kilda.
Adelaide.
Brisbane.
Kangaroos.
Hawthorn.
Port Adelaide.


That's the order for RD's 5 and 9 I saw and remember.

You are correct. All three rounds have the same order

 

[NZ Blue Boy]

If that is the Official AFL Yearbook for 2000, published by Viking, then in fact Rounds Five and Nine are accurate. Pages 57 and 77.

Wow you are right. Ive never noticed that before ! Unfortunately AFL 2001 ( the season guide) fails to even give ladders after each round of 2000 results so I will have to trawl around the internet to cross check this. Remarkable !

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Wow you are right. Ive never noticed that before ! Unfortunately AFL 2001 ( the season guide) fails to even give ladders after each round of 2000 results so I will have to trawl around the internet to cross check this. Remarkable !

The 2001 stats book even failed to give QBQ scores which became the norm from 2002- while RBR ladders were included in either the 2003 edition or the 2004 edition.

 

[NZ Blue Boy]

The 2001 stats book even failed to give QBQ scores which became the norm from 2002- while RBR ladders were included in either the 2003 edition or the 2004 edition.

Yes. True. Btw the AFL Tables website confirms your point about the 2000 yearbook inaccuracy. How did you notice ?

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Yes. True. Btw the AFL Tables website confirms your point about the 2000 yearbook inaccuracy. How did you notice ?

After I was given a copy of it for Christmas I flicked through the book (was primarily into the ladders) and saw it then and there.

 

[NZ Blue Boy]

After I was given a copy of it for Christmas I flicked through the book (was primarily into the ladders) and saw it then and there.

Precise mind you have ! And yes RBR ladders began 2004 in the official stats book. Thank you for alerting us to all this.

 

[rbartlett]

Just an FYI, I'm going to liaise with Stephen Rogers and see if he wants me to send through the Spreadsheet that we have been maintaining.
Since WHL sort of disappeared from the thread, I've kept updating it, so I'll cast my eyes over the last few pages to see if I have missed anything, then send it onto to Stephen Rogers. the croucher also has access to the spreadsheet. Does anyone else want access to it ?

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Just an FYI, I'm going to liaise with Stephen Rogers and see if he wants me to send through the Spreadsheet that we have been maintaining.
Since WHL sort of disappeared from the thread, I've kept updating it, so I'll cast my eyes over the last few pages to see if I have missed anything, then send it onto to Stephen Rogers. the croucher also has access to the spreadsheet. Does anyone else want access to it ?

Yes please.

 

[35Daicos]

Just an FYI, I'm going to liaise with Stephen Rogers and see if he wants me to send through the Spreadsheet that we have been maintaining.
Since WHL sort of disappeared from the thread, I've kept updating it, so I'll cast my eyes over the last few pages to see if I have missed anything, then send it onto to Stephen Rogers. the croucher also has access to the spreadsheet. Does anyone else want access to it ?

the croucher hasn't been seen around these parts for some time, so I hope all is well with him, and that we'll see him back on here one of these days!

I'm quite happy to leave that (spreadsheet) side of things to others. However, it does look to me as if there's a lot of stuff that needs to be added to it, with very few entries from this time last year onwards, and a lot of catching up is going to be necessary for the AFL folks as well! I'm sure they'll be thrilled!

 

[35Daicos]

Just an FYI, I'm going to liaise with Stephen Rogers and see if he wants me to send through the Spreadsheet that we have been maintaining.
Since WHL sort of disappeared from the thread, I've kept updating it, so I'll cast my eyes over the last few pages to see if I have missed anything, then send it onto to Stephen Rogers. the croucher also has access to the spreadsheet. Does anyone else want access to it ?

Another concern we seem to have is that there have been a fair few times where Paul/AFL Tables has been 'tagged' on this board (I think the same may have happened with AustralianFootball.com, but not so sure) yet it doesn't look as if they have seen/responded to those posts. So there may be quite a few cases where changes have been officially made/approved but they haven't been changed on the stats website(s).

For example, just check this post (and the next few after it) from last April: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...fficial-records.1089761/page-83#post-60276868
It looks as if AFL Tables still hasn't seen this, as those changes haven't appeared on that site.

There's another example here, where Paul doesn't seem to have read about this approved change: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...fficial-records.1089761/page-88#post-62069100

AFL Tables - Jack McConchie - Stats - Statistics

afltables.com

It's been changed on AustralianFootball.com: https://australianfootball.com/players/player/jock+mcconchie/5493

I should point out that occasionally I've "stumbled on" tags aimed at myself, but I didn't get 'notified' that they were there, so it seems very possible that they can go unnoticed.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Just clarifying rbartlett, does this sheet show the players' middle names?

 

[35Daicos]

Just clarifying rbartlett, does this sheet show the players' middle names?

A link to the spreadsheet can be found in the first post of the thread; it should still work.

 

[RedmanWasHere]

DO'H!

Just realised I was thinking of the missing players' thread.

Apologies.

 

[Supermercado]

1964 Grand Final - The Age has the list of Collingwood goalkickers below.



AFL Tables, the Canberra Times, Collingwood Forever and Wikipedia have Gabelich 2, Waters 2, Bone 1, Dalton 1, Steer 1, Tuddenham 1 (so giving one extra to Waters and taking one off Graham)

The complication is the paper specifically mentions the circumstances of a goal to Graham.



Does anyone have access to another Melbourne newspaper to see what they say? I'll double check vs Herald/Sun/Sporting Globe/etc... when next at the State Library but if he didn't kick one it was a fair botch by The Age.

 

[35Daicos]

1964 Grand Final - The Age has the list of Collingwood goalkickers below.

View attachment 805528

AFL Tables, the Canberra Times, Collingwood Forever and Wikipedia have Gabelich 2, Waters 2, Bone 1, Dalton 1, Steer 1, Tuddenham 1 (so giving one extra to Waters and taking one off Graham)

The complication is the paper specifically mentions the circumstances of a goal to Graham.

View attachment 805529

Does anyone have access to another Melbourne newspaper to see what they say? I'll double check vs Herald/Sun/Sporting Globe/etc... when next at the State Library but if he didn't kick one it was a fair botch by The Age.

This was on FullPointsFooty: https://web.archive.org/web/20071225085701/http://www.fullpointsfooty.net/gabbo's_run_in_vain.htm

2nd Quarter


Yet for the goalkickers: Collingwood: Gabelich, Waters 2; Bone, Dalton, Steer, Tuddenham

 

[35Daicos]

1964 Grand Final - The Age has the list of Collingwood goalkickers below.

View attachment 805528

AFL Tables, the Canberra Times, Collingwood Forever and Wikipedia have Gabelich 2, Waters 2, Bone 1, Dalton 1, Steer 1, Tuddenham 1 (so giving one extra to Waters and taking one off Graham)

The complication is the paper specifically mentions the circumstances of a goal to Graham.

View attachment 805529

Does anyone have access to another Melbourne newspaper to see what they say? I'll double check vs Herald/Sun/Sporting Globe/etc... when next at the State Library but if he didn't kick one it was a fair botch by The Age.

Here it is! About one minute in - Waters marks, kicks forward, Graham snaps it up and goals:


Looks like The Age did get it right, (just about) everyone else got it wrong. The AFL Season Guide has the same goalkickers as AFL Tables and the others have.

This was very nicely spotted, by the way! It seems incredible that this error in such a big game has been out there for so long!

As things stand, the records show this for Collingwood's leading goalkickers in 1964:

Waters is officially the leading goalkicker with 43 goals. So quite significant in more ways than one!

It does say this in that Canberra Times article:

 

[Gibbsy]

Here it is! About one minute in - Waters marks, kicks forward, Graham snaps it up and goals:


Looks like The Age did get it right, (just about) everyone else got it wrong. The AFL Season Guide has the same goalkickers as AFL Tables and the others have.

This was very nicely spotted, by the way! It seems incredible that this error in such a big game has been out there for so long!

As things stand, the records show this for Collingwood's leading goalkickers in 1964:
View attachment 805545
Waters is officially the leading goalkicker with 43 goals. So quite significant in more ways than one!

It does say this in that Canberra Times article:
View attachment 805548

wow – that’s a whole new retrospective medal to be awarded!